Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Egypt (Propaganda)

Captain Pilkington: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the Egyptian claim for £71 million for the events of last autumn, how much this country is claiming for the damage done as a result of the "Voice of Cairo" and other methods of propaganda used by Colonel Nasser.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): No claims of the kind referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend have, been presented by the Egyptians to us or by us to them.

Captain Pilkington: Does my right hon. Friend agree that had it not been for the policies advocated by the "Voice of Cairo" there need have been no Suez war and no damage at all?

Mr. Thorneycroft: That raises rather wider questions.

Bank Rate

Mr. Bence: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received respecting the possible effect of the recent increase in the Bank Rate on house purchase for occupation; and what steps he proposes to take to offset the burden being placed on building societies and young people desirous of buying a house.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Apart from a few letters, none. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) on 29th October.

Mr. Bence: Is the Minister aware that I have come across many instances where

young people who had intended buying houses because of the Rent Act are now finding themselves in the position of having to submit to extortionate increases in rent? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it desirable to encourage young people to acquire their own homes?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I have answered the Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the handicap the Bank Rate of 7 per cent. imposes on our export trade; and when he proposes to reduce it.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: No, Sir.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Chancellor aware that the Soviet Government have just lent India £44 million at the criminal and wicked rate of 2½ per cent.? How does he expect British capitalists to compete with Russian Communists in these markets if the Bank Rate has gone up to 7 per cent.?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's desire to follow in too much detail the example of Soviet Russia.

Inflation

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the figures at his disposal indicate that inflation is being checked.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Gold is flowing in instead of out and there is more confidence in the £ both at home and abroad, but our policies must be pressed home with vigour to ensure success.

Estate Duty

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why certain works of art and real estate were accepted from the executors of the late Duke of Devonshire in settlement of Estate Duty; what was the value of the works of art, houses, and land, respectively; and how the valuation was made.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The acquisition of these items through the National Land Fund was considered to be desirable under the terms of the relevant Finance Acts. The works of art were valued at £1,195,000 and Hardwick Hall and Park at £34,000. These figures were reached by negotiation between the executors and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.

Mr. Johnson: May I ask my right hon. Friend if it is not a fact that two of these pictures were found to be in a very unsatisfactory condition, that extensive work had to be carried out on them and that they now have to be kept in special scientifically-controlled conditions? May I further ask my right hon. Friend whether the condition of the pictures was known when they were taken over and whether it is not most unsatisfactory, at a time when economy is needed, to spend over £1 million for a purpose of this kind?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not think so. Parliament has approved this particular method of paying Estate Duty and though these pictures needed repair, and are being most carefully repaired by experts, they are a great acquisition to the nation.

Mr. Cronin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take action to alleviate the hardship suffered by children when their parents have died simultaneously yet it is nevertheless presumed for the purpose of collecting Estate Duty that there has been an interval of time between the deaths of the parents with a consequent double payment of Estate Duty.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I will consider the hon. Member's suggestion when I am making my general review of taxation in connection with next year's Budget.

Mr. Cronin: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that sympathetic consideration of this matter by him would bring him universal accord?

Council on Wages, Prices and Productivity

Mr. Darling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will amend the terms of reference of Lord Cohen's Council on Wages, Prices and Productivity so as to allow the Council to inquire into and report on the extent to which industrial management has not introduced modern machinery and modern methods of operations as recommended in the Reports of the Productivity Council.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The Council's existing terms of reference, which include the review of changes in productivity, would be sufficiently wide for such inquiries, but it is for the Council to decide whether or not it wishes to pursue them.

Mr. Darling: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Council is, in fact, making these inquiries, because, if it is not doing so, it will be in danger of producing a one-sided report as it is quite obvious that managerial inefficiency which keeps earnings low and prices high is one of the prime causes of inflation in the country?

Mr. Thorneycroft: No, Sir. I must make it quite plain that I can answer for the terms of reference which the Government laid down, but not for the Council.

Mr. Darling: In view of that fact, will not the right hon. Gentleman give instructions to the Council to cover every aspect?

Ideal Bank, Limited

Mr. Roy Jenkins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he proposes to take under Section 4 of the Bank of England Act, 1946, to safeguard the position of the depositors in the Ideal Bank, Limited, in view both of the directors' statement that they are forced, as a result of Government policy, to suspend withdrawals, and of the general loss of confidence to which this may lead.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: None, Sir. The House will be aware that the position of the depositors in the Ideal Bank, Limited, has been fully safeguarded as a result of action taken by Barclays Bank, Limited. I am happy to say that the fears expressed in the last part of the Question have proved unfounded.

Mr. Jenkins: Whilst appreciating that events have moved a little in the way we all welcome since this Question was put down, does not the Chancellor realise that there was considerable local concern about it, and is he satisfied that no other small banks in the country are likely to find themselves in this position as a result of his policy?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I cannot answer for either small or large banks in this matter. I answer for the Exchequer. The fears which the hon. Gentleman expressed were held at one time, but I am sure that he is as glad as everybody else to see that they are unfounded.

Wages and Salaries

Mr. Collins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the total national income was represented by


wages in the years 1948 and 1956, respectively.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Wages and salaries—which include the pay of many directly comparable to wage earners, e.g., clerical workers, as well as managers—together represented 65·2 per cent. of the national income in 1948 and 67·4 per cent. in 1956. For wages alone the proportions were 44·1 per cent. and 44·8 per cent. respectively.

Mr. Collins: Is the Chancellor aware that his figures reveal that the wage earners' share in the national cake was almost precisely the same in those two years? Is he further aware that there were more than 2 million extra workers in 1956, so that the individual worker's share was considerably less? Will he bear that in mind and bring it to the notice of his colleagues when considering all questions of productivity and wages?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I will bear these things in mind, but I think it is idle to pretend that the increased weight of purchasing power from higher wages has not had a very important effect on the economy.

Premium Savings Bonds

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the cost of administration, advertising, and prizes, respectively, to date, in connection with the Premium Bond Scheme.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The costs of administration and advertising up to the end of October, 1957, are estimated at £1,400,000 and £400,000 respectively. The total value of the prizes in the first six draws, including that in November, was £2,325,000.

Mr. Thomas: In view of all these very heavy costs, does the Chancellor think, especially since the scheme is so controversial, that it is worth while going on with it?

Mr. Thorneycroft: What matters is what savings are attracted. The scheme has attracted £111 million worth of savings. I hope the hon. Gentleman will invest in a Premium Savings Bond.

Mr. Cronin: Are not these savings the consequence of money withdrawn from other forms of saving?

Mr. Thorneycroft: No, there is no doubt that the scheme is attracting new savings as well.

Non-Sterling Area Securities

Mr. Cronin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an approximate estimate as to what proportion of the £150 million outflow of net private long-term investment in the balance of payments in the first six months of 1957 was due to private purchases of non-sterling area securities.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: About half.

Mr. Cronin: Does not this indicate that the recent balance of payments crisis was due largely to the flight of private capital into non-sterling areas, and that the real spanner in the machinery is not wage increases but the notion of Conservative freedom applied to exchange control?

Mr. Thorneycroft: No, Sir.

£ Sterling (Value)

Dr. King: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the relative value of the £ sterling in February, 1956, and the latest available date.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: On the basis of the Index of Retail Prices, and taking the purchasing value of the £ as 20s. in February, 1956, the comparable figure for September, 1957, was 18s. 10d.

Dr. King: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer shows how much the pensions of civil servants and of local government pensioners have declined in value since the House began its last pensions increase Measure? Does he not think it is time that the Government did what they did two years ago and brought in a second Pensions (Increase) Bill?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I should have thought rather that it was a good justification of the policies announced by the Government.

Purchase Tax

Dr. King: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, as on a previous occasion, he will announce any proposed changes in Purchase Tax in January rather than in April.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: It would be wrong for me to indicate when I might contemplate any action in regard to Purchase Tax.

Dr. King: While not wishing the Chancellor to anticipate in any way his Budget Statement, may I ask him to bear in mind that the action of his predecessor in announcing a change of Purchase Tax out of the usual routine in January was of benefit to trade and commerce? If he has any such changes in mind, will he make them at the beginning of the year?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I will bear all these matters in mind, but it will really not help the trade and industry of this country if I start to announce dates about alterations in Purchase Tax.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) for what reason it has been decided that basket-ware articles, whose primary function is within the home, such as baby baskets, bread baskets, washing baskets, and waste-paper baskets, only pay Purchase Tax at the rate of 5 per cent., whereas similar basketware articles for use outside the home, such as perambulator baskets, are subjected to tax at 30 per cent.; and whether arrangements may be made in due course for all baskets to be taxed at the same rate;
(2) for what reason the exemptions for glass chimneys and primary glasses under Group 14 (a) (iv) and 14 (d) (ii) apply to lamp glasses for candle and oil-burning lamps designed both to assist combustion and protect the flame, as well as glasses of this kind for lamps which are designed to function without a separate internal chimney, but not lamp glasses, globes, and shades, which are used to surround an internal chimney; and whether he will review this matter at an early date;
(3) whether he is aware that the present rules of the customs and excise authorities with regard to Purchase Tax provide that all preparations for the promotion of suntan, whether perfumed or not, are subject to Purchase Tax at 90 per cent., whereas preparations for the prevention of suntan are taxed at 90 per cent. if perfumed, but only to 30 per cent. if on perfumed; and whether, in view of the damage which such anomalous and heavy taxation causes to the building up of our export trade in such products, he

will arrange for an early review of the matter.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: As the House is already aware, I am examining alleged anomalies in the Purchase Tax to which my attention has been drawn in the debates on the last Finance Bill and elsewhere. In that review I will take note of my hon. Friend's researches.

Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my researches in this matter have been lengthy and that there are another fifty Questions at least to him to follow, and I can provide him with another fifty if he wants them? As there are literally hundreds upon hundreds of these anomalies, would my right hon. Friend apply himself thoroughly to them between now and the next Budget, and today would he tell the House, for example, why there is this discrimination, revealed in Question 19 in the matter of baskets, in the Treasury?

Mr. Thorneycroft: While respecting my hon. Friend's knowledge of baskets of all kinds, I had in mind in drafting this particular reply the fact that there were a further fifty Questions which might be asked.

Mr. Nabarro: They are asked.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am bound to say this to my hon. Friend. While the question of anomalies in Purchase Tax is a serious and important matter, I do not believe that the debating in Question and answer of individual changes, in advance of any change being announced, would be in the interests of the traders concerned.

Mrs. Braddock: Can the Chancellor tell us whether he has any knowledge of the fact that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) actually voted for these increases in the last Budget?

Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware, in relation to the last supplementary question, that none of these matters referred to in the three Questions are increases in Purchase Tax, but all stem from the original Purchase Tax Schedules in 1941 as made worse by the party opposite?

Dame Irene Ward: Since he is having an examination into all these matters and


it would save the time of the House if we could have the answer to that examination, can my right hon. Friend let us know when he expects to report on the elimination of all these anomalies? It would save such a lot of time and trouble.

Mr. Nabarro: I shall keep him up to it.

Mr. Thorneycroft: No, Sir. I do not think that it would be advantageous to announce a date when changes in Purchase Tax are going to take place. To do so would really do a very great deal of damage to a very large number of traders in the country. I urge my hon. Friend to exercise a little caution in the interests of the traders concerned.

Anglo-Indian Discussions

Mr. Oram: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what official requests for financial aid were made by Mr. Krishnamachari, Indian Finance Minister, on his recent visit to this country; and what reply was given by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) by my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) on 31st October last.

Mr. Oram: Is the Chancellor aware that the Soviet Union has recently provided India with a credit of £45 million on favourable terms? Is he also aware that yesterday the Foreign Secretary, speaking of the situation in Tunis, said:
…it would be most unfortunate if the Tunisian Government should be forced to rely upon arms coming from the Soviet bloc."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1957; Vol. 578, c. 34.]
Do not similar considerations apply in granting aid to India? While welcoming any aid for India's second five-year plan, would it not be most unfortunate if India were forced to rely too much on economic aid from the Soviet bloc?

Mr. Thorneycroft: This Question asks what Mr. Krishnamachari said to me and what I said to him, and those sorts of conversation are confidential.

Farthings

Mr. Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when farthings were last minted; and whether, in view of the ¾d. reduction in the price of petrol, he will now mint more farthings.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Farthings were last minted in February, 1956. The present supply should be sufficient to meet requirements.

Mr. Lipton: As it costs ½d. to make ¼d., is it not rather stupid of the oil companies to try to force this useless coin into greater circulation again? Will the Chancellor, therefore, ask the oil companies and the petrol retailers to forgo ⅛d. per gallon each and thus give the public 1d. reduction? It would be very much simpler and more sensible, would it not?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Yes, Sir, but I am answering for the Mint and not for the oil companies.

Mr. Lipton: Why not ask them?

National Savings Certificates

Mr. P. Morris: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the increase of the Bank rate, he will agree to increase the maximum holding of the tenth issue of National Savings Certificates with a view to encouraging saving amongst people of modest means.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am not proposing to make any changes in the terms of National Savings at the present time.

Mr. Morris: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be a much more worthy way of encouraging people to save than the very doubtful expedient of Premium Savings Bonds?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not think it would help at all if I were to forecast changes in the terms of National Savings Certificates.

Public Works Loan Board (Local Authorities' Applications)

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the Public Works Loan Board does not give specific reasons for the rejection of loan applications by local authorities; and whether he will issue an instruction that such reasons should be given in the future.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The reason for the rejection or partial rejection of an application is normally that the Board is not satisfied that the authority applying has made full use of its credit to borrow in the market. It is the practice for this to be explained to applicants.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Chancellor aware that there are grave suspicions that the Board does nothing of the kind, that it does not look at each case objectively on its merits, and that on occasions the intervention of a Minister of the Crown can make the Board change its mind? Does not he think that is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs?

Mr. Thorneycroft: If the hon. Gentleman has any complaints about an individual case and will let me know, I will look at it.

Pensions

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to introduce a new Pensions (Increase) Act.

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the increase granted to retirement pensioners now announced, he will accord similar appropriate increases to postal and other retired civil servants.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: A new Pensions (Increase) Act, became effective as recently as April, 1956, and it is not the Government's present intention to introduce another.

Dame Irene Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the Prime Minister's pledge at Brighton to those living on small fixed incomes, and is he aware that the pledge at Brighton was given after the passing of the last Pensions (Increase) Act? In view of the fact that he has already implemented the pledge to the old-age pensioners, may I ask why there is this discrimination against those living on small fixed incomes, and may we have a satisfactory answer?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not think that I can add anything to the Answer I have already given to my hon. Friend.

Small Fixed Income Group

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, before the Bill proposing Local Government Reform is introduced, he will lay a White Paper indicating what steps are being taken to improve the position of ratepayers living on small fixed incomes.

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will include in his Bill for Local Government Reform measures to protect those who do not pay Income Tax from any additional rate burden in respect of transfer of financial responsibility from the taxpayer to the ratepayer.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): I have been asked to reply and, with permission, I will answer this Question and No. 65 together.
The general effect of the Government's proposals will be an overall financial gain to local government. The position of persons living on small incomes is, in other respects, beyond the scope of a Bill whose purpose is to make adjustments in the rating system and in the system of Exchequer grants to local authorities.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. In view of the fact that I have had one Question on a similar subject transferred by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, might I ask why two Questions were not transferred, and why does not the Chancellor stand up for his own Department himself? Then, may I ask my supplementary? Is my right hon. Friend who is answering for the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that I am not so interested in the overall gain to my part of the world, though I hope it will be substantial, but that what I am asking is whether those living on small fixed incomes, who are quite as important as those who have large incomes, are to have a protection? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that I am unlikely to support the proposals unless some sort of satisfaction for those in whom I am interested is provided?

Mr. Brooke: If we can get through to the end of Question Time, I have given notice to present a Bill then, and perhaps my hon. Friend would read it.

Hire-Purchase Finance (Loans from Abroad)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that a British hire-purchase finance corporation has been advertising abroad for loans at high rates of interest; since this evades the Government's policy of restricting borrowing, what steps he is taking to stop this form of evasion; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Reply that I gave to the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) on the 12th November.

Mr. Osborne: Since 12th November, the City Editor of The Times last Thursday called attention to this rather important problem and suggested steps which might be taken. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has looked into those suggestions. If not, would he do so and make a statement in the future?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I will certainly look at any suggestions.

Capital Issues Committee

Mr. Cronin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will strengthen the Capital Issues Committee and arrange for it to meet more frequently.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: No, Sir.

Mr. Cronin: Bearing in mind that the decisions of the Capital Issues Committee have not produced universal satisfaction and that last year it dealt with over seventy cases per sitting, is not there a case for introducing the improvement I have suggested?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The scope of the Capital Issues Committee will fall, amongst other things, within the general review of the Radcliffe Committee. I do not think that we need have another Committee.

Mr. Rankin: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has just said that he does not propose to strengthen the Capital Issues Committee, thereby accepting that it requires to be strengthened?

Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1889

Mr. Foot: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the observations of the

Court of Appeal in re Hodge's policy; and whether he will introduce legislation to amend Section 11 (1) of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1889.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am reviewing this matter in accordance with the undertaking given during the Finance Bill debates, but I cannot anticipate the Budget Statement.

Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, according to the words used by the Financial Secretary in the debate on 3rd July, the present state of the law is impossible to defend?

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Caravan Sites

Mr. Simmons: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make it obligatory on owners of caravan sites to provide caravan dwellers on their site with rent books in which the address of the local medical officer of health is clearly stated.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has no power to do this, and can see no advantage in it.

Mr. Simmons: Surely the Minister realises that health and sanitary conditions on caravan sites are even more important than in permanent dwellings, and, since many caravan owners do not know the address of the medical officer of health, they have to put up with insanitary conditions? Can he do something about it?

Mr. Bevins: Yes, but the proposal in the hon. Gentleman's Question is that this information should be conveyed through the medium of rent books. As these caravans are not subject to rent control. I do not think that that would be the right way.

Mr. Simmons: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will cause a directive to be issued to local authorities containing an indication of the minimum safeguards to be imposed before granting owners of caravan sites a licence to use such sites for caravans used as human habitations.

Mr. Bevins: Local authorities have power to attach conditions to the licences


which they grant for caravan sites. My right hon. Friend does not think there is need for him to offer special guidance to local authorities on how they should use this power.

Mr. Simmons: But could not the hon. Gentleman's Ministry which, after all, is concerned about the housing of the people, lay down a specimen set of conditions and rules; and, since many caravan dwellings are held on a weekly basis, can he not give any protection at all in security of tenure?

Mr. Bevins: Of course, there are model conditions in existence already, which some local authorities use. Local authorities, by and large, have this power to set down standards for hygiene, sanitation and so forth, but conditions at the various sites vary so much in different parts of the country that my right hon. Friend does not think it right to issue a general directive.

Unmade Roads, Poole

Captain Pilkington: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what mileage of unmade roads in the County Borough of Poole was made up from 1945 to 1955, inclusive, in 1956, and in 1957 up to date; and what mileage and how many streets still remain to be made up.

Mr. Bevins: I regret this information is not available from my Department's records. I think it could best be obtained from the local authority.

Water Undertakings (Regrouping)

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether it remains his policy as set out in Circular 52/56 to encourage the regrouping of water undertakings.

Mr. H. Brooke: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Mikardo: May I assume from that answer that the Thames Valley scheme, which has been jointly sponsored by Reading Borough and Berkshire County and falls well within the ambit of the circular, will have the right hon. Gentleman's sympathetic consideration and, subject to details, his approval?

Mr. Brooke: Everything has my careful consideration, but the hon. Gentleman's Question was framed in general terms and so was my Answer.

Planning Appeal, Somerset

Mr. Peyton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he expects to be able to give a decision on the planning appeal of Mr. Arnold, of Merriott, Somerset.

Mr. Bevins: My right hon. Friend has allowed the appeal.

Mr. Peyton: While thanking my hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask whether he is aware that my reason for putting the Question on the Order Paper was that, although the whole matter is very small, it has taken about eight months to clear it up? Would he and his right hon. Friend, who have shown no lack of courage in facing many problems, apply those qualities to the bumbling machine of town and country planning which we inherited from the party opposite?

Mr. Bevins: My hon. Friend would no doubt agree that a delayed decision that is right is better than a quick one that is wrong.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Rent Act

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement on the effects of the Rent Act; and which of the objectives for which the Act was designed have been or are being achieved.

Mr. H. Brooke: It is too soon to see the full effect of this Measure.

Mr. Dodds: With the knowledge the right hon. Gentleman has already, is he unmoved by the mounting toll of misery among elderly people, many of whom know that, by next October, they will have to leave houses in which they have lived for many years? Is he not aware also of the misery caused as a result of insecurity of tenure to untold numbers of other elderly people who live in houses which are decontrolled? Is this one of


the main objectives of the Act? If it is not, what does he propose to do about it?

Mr. Brooke: In reply to the hon. Gentleman's Question, I used the exact words spoken by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) in the House last week. In reply to the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I will say that I am proposing this week to send a circular to local authorities about the housing of old people.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is not the Rent Act already bringing forward a large number of houses—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"]—and has it not already performed one act of justice, that is, to give the landlord a more proper return on his property?

Mr. Brooke: I have no doubt whatever that the Rent Act has stimulated the doing of a great many much-needed repairs.

Mr. Mitchison: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if he waits much longer, he will be too late to prevent the very hard bargains which are being driven at present by the landlords of decontrolled houses? Those leases are being negotiated, and landlords have the whip hand; tenants, with eviction threatened, are having to accept what are really grossly unfair terms. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"]

Mr. Brooke: I spoke about this at length in the debate last week, and I am glad to say that the great majority of new three-year tenancies are being entered into on reasonable terms.

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he is proposing to take to amend Schedule VI, paragraph 21, of the Rent Act, 1957, in view of the judgment given by Judge Carr in the Stourbridge County Court on 3rd October, 1957.

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether his attention has been drawn to a county court judgment at Stourbridge in October with regard to paragraph 21 of the Sixth Schedule of the Rent Act, 1957; and what action he proposes to ensure that the greater hardship proviso shall remain part of the Act.

Mr. H. Brooke: I have taken note of this judgment, but a decision in a county court does not constitute a binding precedent in other cases, and it is not to be assumed that a similar view would necessarily be taken by other courts. If a similar decision were reached by a higher court, I should certainly consider whether steps ought to be taken to give effect to the original intention.

Mrs. Castle: Is not the right hon. Gentleman's reply quite unsatisfactory because, first, he fails to deal with the position of the tenant in the case of Perry v. Downing, against whom the judge found on this issue and who, for all we know, may have been evicted because of the dubiety of the right hon. Gentleman's own Act? Is he not also failing to deal with the fact that as long as there is this dubiety there may be other county court decisions? Is not the only way to deal with this matter to have a simple amendment of the Act which would put the issue beyond all doubt?

Mr. Brooke: It is not for me to interpret the law, but the decision of the county court is not final on a matter of this kind, and there is an appeal to a higher court. I think that it would be better to suspend judgment until a decision is given by the higher court.

Mrs. Butler: While, in the circumstances, I welcome the Minister's assurance that he will look at this matter again if there is an appeal, may I ask whether he should not follow the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and do something now, since he made it quite clear in Standing Committee on the Rent Bill that it was his intention that the court should decide which was the greater hardship, and a number of cases on this point are coming before the county court?

Mr. Brooke: I cannot compel anybody who loses a case to lodge an appeal, but when an appeal is lodged we shall get a decision by the higher court.

Mr. Mitchison: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the decision of the county court judge is in direct conflict with the answer in his own guide to the Rent Act? Does he intend to reprint the guide, or does he intend to wait until somebody pays the money to go to the Court of Appeal, because his own Act


has not been clearly drafted and has misled one county court judge, at any rate, and there are conflicting decisions? Is not it right, in the circumstances, to bring in a short Bill to make perfectly clear that his own answer in Standing Committee and his own advice in the guide to the Rent Act is what he intended should be and what ought to be the law? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he did that we on this side of the House would facilitate the passage of a Bill for that purpose?

Mr. Fell: On a point of order—

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. A point of order has been raised.

Mr. Fell: On a point of order. Would I have your permission, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) upon using his position on the Front Bench opposite to ask a record number of supplementary questions to the exclusion of questions by back-benchers?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Mitchison: May I have an answer from the Minister?

Mr. Brooke: There is no doubt about my intention and there has been no change in my intention, but it would be contrary to all precedent to ask Parliament to alter a law which is on the Statute Book on the basis of one judgment given in a county court before any higher court has had any opportunity to pronounce upon it.

Mr. Mitchison: Will the right hon. Gentleman pay the costs of an appeal?

Interest Rates

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware of the concern of local authorities at the high rates of repayment now being asked for loans for house building; what steps have been taken to ascertain the effect this will have on the building of council houses when present contracts have been completed; and what are the prospects for the future.

Mr. H. Brooke: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery) on 12th November.

Mr. Dodds: Is that the best Answer the right hon. Gentleman can give? Is he not ashamed of himself?

Mr. Brooke: It was a first-class Answer.

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware of the decision of the Middlesex County Council to suspend the granting of loans for house-purchase, even where tenants have had to leave rented property; and, in so far as this and similar decisions by other local authorities are due to the recent increase in the Bank Rate, what action he proposes to take in the matter.

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is aware that a number of local authorities have suspended home mortgage advances since the increase in the Bank Rate to 7 per cent.; and what action he proposes to enable them to resume these functions so as to assist those who are compelled to purchase their homes because of the decontrol provisions of the Rent Act, 1957.

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will take steps to ensure that the cost of loans under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act does not exceed the present rate of interest on these loans.

Mr. H. Brooke: I would refer the right hon. and hon. Members to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery) on 12th November.

Mr. Wilson: In what we understood was to be a property-owning democracy, is it not most regrettable that these local authorities, because of the Government's financial policy, now find themselves, or state that they find themselves, unable to help in the matter of loans for private house purchase?

Mr. Brooke: I think a number of the local authorities might reconsider the matter after my statement last week that I should be ready to consider new or revised schemes which provided for varying the rates of interest to borrowers.

Mrs. Butler: Does not the Minister realise the real dilemma of local authorities who either have to refuse loans to people who are threatened with eviction


under the Rent Act, or, if they make advances, land themselves in great financial difficulty and face the fact that they are hanging a millstone of high interest rates round the necks of the people who are forced to borrow or else find themselves homeless?

Mr. Brooke: I would ask the hon. Lady again to read the announcement which I made last week, which creates a new situation which I am sure all local authorities will wish to examine.

Overcrowding

Mr. Gibson: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what powers are enjoyed under his Regulations by local authorities to deal with the overcrowding of houses by landlords who exploit the housing needs of coloured immigrants in London.

Mr. H. Brooke: Section 90 of the Housing Act, 1957, empowers local authorities—in London both the London County Council and the metropolitan borough councils—to serve notices upon landlords fixing, at their discretion, the number of people who may sleep in a room. Appeal lies to the county court.

Mr. Gibson: In view of the difficulties which this problem is creating in some of our towns, will the right hon. Gentleman call the attention of local authorities to these powers and ask them not to wait until complaints are made by white people, which is what they are doing at the moment?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Member himself has a local authority background. These are discretionary powers already enjoyed by local authorities, who do not, I think, need any direction from me.

Mr. Mitchison: Has the right hon. Gentleman any suggestion to make to local authorities as to where the surplus occupants of overcrowded houses are to live?

Mr. Brooke: That is clearly something which a local authority must take into account when considering the exercise of its powers.

Programmes

Mr. Gibson: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many local housing authorities have

reduced the number of houses they are building compared with 1955; and how many have decided not to build any more houses, stating as their reason the additional heavy costs arising from excessive interest charges on loans.

Mr. H. Brooke: In answer to the first part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the published Housing Returns.
In answer to the second part, out of a total of 1,468 housing authorities 38 have informed me that they have decided to reduce their housing programmes because of increased loan charges.

Mr. Gibson: Does not the Minister realise that if thirty-eight housing authorities have already decided that because of the present extortionate interest charges they cannot go on with more housing, that will spread like a disease all over the country? Does he not realise that many more are considering doing this? Is he aware—I am sure he is—that even the London County Council has had very considerably to restrict the area of its loans for house-building purposes because of the extremely high rates of interest?

Mr. Brooke: The latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question deals with a separate matter. The fact is that a number of local authorities have in any case decided that they are within sight of satisfying the housing need in their area. I have to deal with the situation as it is, and the present situation is that fewer than 3 per cent. of the housing authorities have acted in the way that the hon. Member indicates.

Mr. Mitchison: Does the right hon. Gentleman's figure include local authorities which have stopped without telling him? Does it include such cases as Bristol where the programme, which was for 3,000 houses last year, will be reduced to 600 next year, and similar cases all over the country, including those in my county, where six out of fourteen local authorities had no houses building at the end of September?

Mr. Brooke: I have answered the Question on the Order Paper and have indicated that fewer than 3 per cent. of the total number of housing authorities have so far informed me that they are reducing their programme.

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether, in the light of the recent debate on economic affairs, he will now state the total number of houses and flats which he anticipates will be completed by local authorities in England and Wales during 1958; and also the number that will be started during the same year.

Mr. H. Brooke: I do not propose to make a speculative forecast of the number which will be completed in 1958. I am prepared to give approval for the starting of 100,000 houses by local authorities and New Town Corporations in that year.

Mr. Collins: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of the National Housing Council, a non-political body, has forecast that by next summer the total number of houses being built will not exceed an annual rate of 100,000, including private enterprise houses? For how much longer will the right hon. Gentleman stand at the Dispatch Box and be wilfully blind to the miseries which his policy is causing? Will he not see the local authorities and try to avert this tragic happening of local authority housing coming to a standstill?

Mr. Brooke: On the contrary, I am ready to give approval for a very large amount of local authority housing, and with respect to the gentleman whom the hon. Gentleman has quoted, I entirely disagree with his statement.

Requirements

Captain Pilkington: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government to what extent reasonable living accommodation in England and Wales now equates with the population; and what is his estimate of the number of new houses still needed.

Mr. H. Brooke: There is not sufficient evidence on which to base a reliable estimate, and I would rather not make guesses.

Captain Pilkington: Is my right hon. Friend aware that as long ago as November, 1953, the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) said that we were not very far from the amount of total accommodation which this nation required? If that was true then, can we not assume that it must be very much truer today?

Mr. Brooke: That is certainly one of the significant statements of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mortgage Control

Mr. Page: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will initiate legislation to provide a measure of decontrol of those mortgages which still remain subject to the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restriction Acts.

Mr. H. Brooke: Mortgage control is lifted where a house comes out of rent control. Where the landlord is still restricted as regards the rent he can charge or the regaining of possession. I think that he should continue to enjoy his present protection against a mortgagee.

Mr. Page: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of these very old mortgages, pre-1914 mortgages, are included in small trust estates and that the low rate of interest is causing considerable hardship to those entitled to the income from such estates?

Mr. Brooke: I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a difficult matter, but it was considered by the Government at the time of the introduction of the Rent Bill, and I think that we reached the right conclusion.

Oral Answers to Questions — WELSH AFFAIRS

Water Resources

Mrs. White: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what reply he has made to the complaints submitted to him by the Council for Wales concerning his failure to proceed with his promised review of Welsh water resources.

Mr. H. Brooke: I stated last February that I was arranging forthwith for my engineers to undertake a technical appraisal of the water resources of Wales. Considerable progress has been made with this investigation. I also stated my intention to set up a Committee to advise me on matters connected with the conservation and use of water resources in Wales.
The membership and terms of reference of this Committee I will be announcing in the near future.

Mrs. White: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last February he said he would appoint this advisory Committee before the investigating engineers had completed their work? Does he think he need have waited from February to the present date before taking action in this matter? Is he not aware that it has aroused considerable misunderstanding and great irritation in the Principality?

Mr. Brooke: I am sorry if it has aroused misunderstanding. I have considered this matter carefully. There has been no time wasted. We have been pressing on as rapidly as possible with the technical investigation. I want the Committee to be appointed and to have some positive work to do the moment it meets.

Mr. Mitchison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has already got two advisory Committees considering the shortage of water, the water supplies and such matters? Is there any overlap with this new Committee? Does he expect the new Committee to report before or after the two existing Committees?

Mr. Brooke: I hope the hon. and learned Member will not oppose the giving of special attention to Wales in this matter.

DEFENCE

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister what proposals he has for delivering a broadcast speech on the defence of Britain similar to that made by President Eisenhower in his broadcast on 7th November.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Many people, including the hon. Gentleman, make proposals to me not only on what I should talk about but also what I should say.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that President Eisenhower undertook the broadcast in order to restore confidence in his Government? Does not the Prime Minister think he should do the same for the Government here; or does he think that if he broadcasts till Christmas it will not have that effect?

The Prime Minister: We have rather regular rules about political broadcasts in this country, to which I propose to adhere.

SCIENTIFIC MANPOWER

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange for one Government Department to be responsible for maintaining records of the numbers, qualifications, and types of appointment held by engineers and technologists of professional standard.

Mr. McInnes: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the difficulties experienced by the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy in obtaining accurate details regarding the loss of highly qualified research scientists, engineers, postgraduate physicists, and chemists by reason of emigration to countries abroad, he will arrange for one Government Department to be responsible for maintaining records of all such emigration.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is already responsible for collecting information about the employment of persons in Great Britain, including engineers and technologists. Records as full as those suggested could be kept only with a degree of expense which would appear disproportionate to their value.
As regards migration, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Poole (Captain Pilkington) on 14th November.

Mr. MacPherson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the question is not entirely one of fullness of the records, although fullness is needed, but of the accuracy of the figures which are kept? Is he aware, for instance, that at the Ministry of Education it is difficult to disentangle the records relating to the qualifications of engineers from those relating to people qualified in other subjects, because they are all kept together? A similar difficulty arises over emigrants, of whom records are kept by the Commonwealth Relations Office. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in recent months there have been statements by scientists well placed to know to the effect that we shall not achieve the modest target of the number of scientists and technologists we have set ourselves? Is it not clear, therefore, that we should


make a special effort, even at some expense, to find out where we are using those we have?

The Prime Minister: There are two quite separate questions here. One is the encouragement of technological training and scientific teaching by every possible means. Those the Government are pursuing with great effort. The second is the question of the keeping of the records in the most suitable way. I quite agree, and I will certainly look into the point the hon. Gentleman has raised. I would, however, remind him that I do not think it would be in conformity with the general view of the moment that we should revert to the period of war time when, of course, there was compulsory registration of all scientists, engineers and so forth by the Ministry of Labour and National Service. Those powers have now expired, and I should not think it would be agreeable to the House if I were to ask to revive them.

Mr. McInnes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy itself is conscious of the widespread belief that the emigration of scientists, technologists, chemists and others has increased considerably during the past few years? Further is he aware that hon. Members have put Questions to Ministers responsible for a variety of Departments and can get no accurate information at all? Is it not worth while, therefore, expending some money in order to have records on this very important subject?

The Prime Minister: It is not only a question of money. It is a question, as I have tried to explain to the House, of taking back powers of compulsory registration of all people which the Ministry of Labour and National Service had in the war. That I am not prepared to do. Short of that, I am quite ready to find all possible information that can be got without reversion to those powers.

Mr. Gaitskell: My hon. Friend was, I think, concerned with the question of the emigration of scientists, and I would ask the Prime Minister if he does not feel that it is desirable to clear up the good deal of confusion which appears to exist on this subject by providing figures of exactly how many scientists of various kinds have emigrated.

The Prime Minister: Yes, but that is just the point—how to obtain those figures in the most effective way without the use of compulsory powers.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT, GREATER LONDON (ROYAL COMMISSION)

Mr. Rippon: asked the Prime Minister if he will announce the terms of reference and the members of the Royal Commission on Greater London.

Mr. Cooper: asked the Prime Minister if he is in a position to announce names and terms of reference of the Royal Commission on Reform of London Local Government.

The Prime Minister: Her Majesty has been pleased to approve the appointment as Chairman of the Commission of Sir Edwin Herbert, K.B.E. The other members will be Paul Cadbury, Esq., C.B.E., Miss Alice Johnston, O.B.E., M.A., W. H. Lawson, Esq., C.B.E, Professor W. J. M. Mackenzie, M.A., Sir Charles Morris, M.A., and Sir John Wrigley, K.B.E., C.B.
The terms of reference are:
To examine the present system and working of local government in the Greater London area: to recommend whether any, and if so what, changes in the local government structure and the distribution of local authority functions in the area, or in any part of it, would better secure effective and convenient local government; and to regard, for these purposes, local government as not including the administration of police, or of water, and the Greater London area as comprising the Metropolitan Police District together with the City of London, the Boroughs of Dartford, Romford, and Watford, the Urban Districts of Caterham and Warlingham, Chorley Wood, Hornchurch, Rickmansworth, and Walton and Weybridge, and the Parish of Watford Rural in the Watford Rural District.

Mr. Rippon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the appointment of this distinguished body will give great satisfaction to those people who believe that there is urgent need for a comprehensive review of local government in the London area? Can he say when the Royal Commission is likely to be able to begin its work?

The Prime Minister: I think we all should be very grateful to the distinguished men and women who have agreed to serve on this Commission. It will be


very arduous work, to which, I am sure, they will give of their best. As to the date when they will report, I am afraid I could not say now.

Mr. Mitchison: None of us, of course, knew those names until we heard them today, or had any idea of them. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if this Commission is to sit continually as one Commission or whether it will have power to sit, if it so wishes, in some committees or smaller bodies? Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea of the sort of time it is expected to take in making a report, which will affect, of course, not only the area covered by the Commission but other parts of the country, especially those immediately outside that area?

The Prime Minister: I have already replied to the second part of that supplementary question. I am afraid I cannot give any estimate of the time the Commission will take. As to its own arrangements, the Royal Commission will, no doubt, like any other Royal Commission, make what internal arrangements it thinks best for the management of its business.

ARAB REFUGEES

Mr. Peyton: asked the Prime Minister to what extent during his recent meeting with President Eisenhower he discussed the problem of the Arab refugees.

The Prime Minister: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern over this problem. We had a general discussion on Middle East affairs, but my hon. Friend will understand that it is not possible for me to go into details.

Mr. Peyton: Will my right hon. Friend take an early opportunity to impress upon President Eisenhower the necessity of ending Western indecision, for which America bears a large share of responsibility, on this subject at the earliest possible moment, and put it to the President that this problem does not get easier with the passing of time but rather steadily and tragically worse, until another generation grows up amid the degradation and squalor of those camps?

The Prime Minister: Yes, as my hon. Friend knows, this is a very serious and, alas, very intractable problem. As to the

actual maintenance, Her Majesty's Government, like other Governments, make an important contribution. We quite realise the urgency of trying to find some final solution of a problem we have at present been able only to mitigate, not to solve.

NUCLEAR WARFARE

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will associate Her Majesty's Government with the recent official statement by the Canadian Prime Minister approving the holding of a world conference of scientists on the dangers to mankind of a thermal nuclear war.

The Prime Minister: I assume the right hon. and learned Gentleman is referring to exchanges which took place in the Canadian House of Commons on 12th November during which the Canadian Prime Minister made it clear that the suggestion was—to use his own words:
…not a matter of national Government consideration".
The question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Henderson: Surely the Prime Minister can go as far as the Canadian Prime Minister went? Did he not say in the same statement that in his view a meeting of the scientists of the world for this purpose could make a definite contribution furthering peace in the world? Is not the Prime Minister prepared to go as far as that?

The Prime Minister: I wish I were so confident that the mere knowledge of a danger automatically produces the methods of reducing it. The scientific facts about the dangers are, of course, well established and well known to the public, at least on this side of the Iron Curtain. Whether a special scientific conference would be valuable or not, while I would consider it, I feel rather doubtful. At any rate, the whole matter is now being fully studied under the aegis of the United Nations.

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister whether the policy of Her Majesty's Government is still guided by the declaration of his predecessor, Sir Anthony Eden, at the July, 1955 summit conference, Geneva, to the effect that a nuclear war would mean the annihilation of both the belligerents and the neutrals;


and what steps he proposes to take to prepare and summon another summit conference in order to avert this possibility.

The Prime Minister: The policy of the nuclear deterrent is outlined in the White Paper on Defence. I have nothing to add to what I told the hon. Member on 12th November, about a summit conference. The danger of nuclear war could best be averted if the Soviet Government would accept the Western Powers' proposals for partial disarmament.

Mr. Zilliacus: Does that mean that the Prime Minister is prepared to accept the idea of the abolition of nuclear tests without tying it up with a package deal?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. It means that the Government of this country stand firmly with their allies on the proposals which were made and which received overwhelming support from the Assembly of the United Nations.

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister whether the speech made at Sunningdale last July by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to the effect that it was essential to resume the life of the country as quickly and smoothly as possible after a hydrogen bomb attack, represents the policy of the Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Zilliacus: Do the Government seriously contend that after a major nuclear attack it will be possible to resume the life of this country smoothly and quickly? Is not that an attempt to deceive the people as to the true nature of hydrogen-bomb warfare?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Because an attack may have the most formidable results is no reason why people should not make the necessary efforts to recover from it.

DOCTORS' AND DENTISTS' REMUNERATION

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Prime Minister whether he has directed the attention of the Royal Commission on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration to the Government's statement that increases of remuneration should be related to increases in productivity.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The terms of reference of the Royal Commission are as I announced on 28th February.

Mr. Blenkinsop: May I take it that Her Majesty's Government will not take the action in relation to doctors that they have recently taken with regard to the more junior staff in the Health Service?

The Prime Minister: The Royal Commission was appointed with certain terms of reference, upon which I do not intend to put any gloss, but I have no doubt that the Royal Commission has regard to the general movements of affairs, like any other people.

Mr. Gaitskell: Are we to understand from that reply that the Government are liable to impose a veto on any recommendations for changes in salary scales among doctors and dentists?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Only the right hon. Gentleman would make so foolish an assumption.

Mr. Gaitskell: The Prime Minister, of course, is as usual rude and arrogant. Neither his answer nor his manner disposes of the issue here. I would ask him again, since a Royal Commission is investigating the whole question of doctors' and dentists' remuneration, whether he is prepared to give an assurance that the recommendations of such a Royal Commission will be considered on their merits by the Government and will not be rejected in the same manner as was the Health Service employees' application?

The Prime Minister: If he will look at the terms of reference, the right hon. Gentleman will find that they are as follows:
(a) How the levels of professional remuneration from all sources now received by doctors and dentists taking any part in the National Health Service compare with the remunerations received by members of other professions, by other members of the medical and dental professions, and by people engaged in connected occupations;
(b) What, in the light of the foregoing, should be the proper current levels of remuneration of such doctors and dentists by the National Health Service;
(c) Whether, and, if so, what, arrangements should be made to keep that remuneration under review…
Those remain the terms of reference of the Royal Commission, but it would be


foolish not to recognise the fact that the Royal Commission, I have no doubt like any other body of men, is cognisant of the general economic conditions of the country.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE EMPLOYEES (DISPUTE)

Mr. Mellish: On a point of order. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, to draw attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the refusal of the Minister of Health to make any statement, or to take any action, on the position arising from the overtime ban which is now being applied to over 7,000 hospitals throughout Great Britain.
The reason I ask for this Adjournment Motion, Sir, is because yesterday, you will remember, there was a Question to the Minister of Health on this matter, which was not reached. You ruled, quite rightly, that at time you saw no urgent public importance, and we anticipated that the reply of the Minister would deal with the point anyway. But if you look in HANSARD, Sir, you will find that his reply was to the effect that he was not proposing to make a statement on this matter.
On the issue as to whether it is of urgent public importance, the fact is that this ban started yesterday, that every hospital in the country is affected, and that every hour the ban is on will mean that the position is worsening. It is imperative, therefore, that Parliament should know from the Minister of Health what action is to be taken on this all-important matter. I beg of you, Mr. Speaker, in the absence of any action by the Minister of Health, to allow us to discuss the matter now and compel the Minister to tell us what his proposals are.

Mr. Speaker: I could not find that as coming within the Standing Order. It has been ruled in the past that the refusal of a Minister to make a statement is not a ground for moving the Adjournment of the House under this Standing Order. The hon. Member and I have no difference at all as to the importance of the matter which he is raising, but in my view it is not yet opportune. I cannot find it within the Standing Order.

Mr. Mellish: Of course, Sir, I understand that this is your Ruling and it is improper for me to question that, but when does a matter of this character become urgent? Has a hospital to fall down? Has it to stop completely? The point is that the longer the ban goes on, the worse will be the problem. When does it become urgent?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is raising a lot of hypothetical questions. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I could not answer the question in that way. We must abide events, and if a situation arises which justifies something of that kind, I will, of course, form another opinion.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Further to that point of order, Sir. I wonder whether you could advise hon. Members whether there is any means by which we can secure the kind of statement from the Minister of Health that we are used to hearing from a Minister when there is a dispute. Can you at least suggest a way in which we can persuade the Minister of Health to tell us what action he is taking? Even if it is not a matter that can come up under Standing Order No. 9, surely it is one for the House to be seized of. Is there any method by which the House can protect itself against the determination of Her Majesty's Government to say no word about it?

Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to answer that. No doubt what has been said has been heard. If an occasion arises when a statement should be made, I have no doubt that the Minister will make one, but there is no way that I can tell whereby what the hon. Member wants can be done. The hon. Member can try his hand at Questions in Parliament, he can take advantage of an Adjournment debate at a later stage, but the view I have formed is that this ban started only yesterday and that everybody knew it would take place. Personally, speaking entirely without bias, I would rather wait until we have a little more experience of what is happening before we divert ourselves from the Orders of the Day for a matter of this kind.

Mr. Mellish: Then, if I am in order, may I give you notice, Sir, that I intend each day to raise with you this question until we get the Minister of Health on his feet?

Mr. Hale: Further to that point of order, Sir. May I respectfully suggest to you the dilemma which now faces private Members? Here is a matter which no one doubts is a matter of grave public importance and about which there is widespread public indignation. If the Minister refuses to answer a Question, there is no point in putting Questions down. If the Leader of the House consistently refuses to find Parliamentary time for the discussion of Motions in the names of private Members, we have no remedy by putting down a Motion.
If we cannot adopt the procedure under Standing Order No. 9, it means that the rights of this House are being frustrated at a time when no Supply Days are available for the Opposition and, therefore, no facility whatever is available, all being concentrated in the hands of a Government who themselves, being under censure, decline, contrary to the long tradition of the House, to find Parliamentary time for discussing what is a Motion of censure upon the Minister.

Mr. Speaker: In the past, when difficulties of that kind have arisen, it has always been found possible, through the usual channels, to arrange a debate. In the past, we have managed to get on with such opportunities of interrogation as lie in the hands of the Opposition and hon. Members generally. Unless there is a definite proposal to alter our rules, I must abide by them.

Mr. Gaitskell: I am sure you will appreciate, Sir, that the suggestion you have made, that arrangements might be Made through the usual channels, is not quite so applicable at this time of year when the Opposition have no time,

though, naturally, we would be glad to pursue the matter and hope for a response from the Government. In the meantime, would you be prepared to accept a Private Notice Question on this matter tomorrow?

Mr. Speaker: We will see what happens. I understand that there is an opportunity for the Opposition.

BILL PRESENTED

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Bill to make further provision, as respects England and Wales, with respect to grants to local or police authorities, with respect to the rating of industrial and freight-transport hereditaments and of transport, electricity and gas authorities, with respect to the making of changes in the area, name, status and functions of local authorities, and with respect to local government finance; to amend the law in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland as to the making by trustees of loans to local and other authorities; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. Henry Brooke; supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. R. A. Butler, Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd, and Mr. Derek Walker-Smith; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday and to be printed. [Bill 15.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the National Insurance Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 18th November].

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 3.—(REPEAL OF TOBACCO RELIEF FOR PENSIONERS AND EQUIVALENT INCREASE IN PENSIONS UNDER OLD AGE PENSIONS ACT, 1936.)

Amendment proposed: In page 2, line 33, to leave out subsection (1).—[Mr. B. Taylor.]

Question again proposed, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause.

3.39 p.m.

Mr. John Paton: When we adjourned last night, Sir Charles, I was addressing the House in support of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor). Last night, I described this Bill as a mean-spirited Measure, and the proposal that we are discussing now I described as perhaps the meanest in this mean-spirited Measure.
I want now to go a little further and say to the Minister quite bluntly and plainly that in some of the aspects of the proposal to abolish the tobacco tokens the consequences are such that he and the Government ought to be ashamed to put it before Parliament. It is one of the worst examples of penny pinching from the poorest of the poor that we have seen for many a long day. The Minister himself, in his heart of hearts, probably is not too proud to have to stand here today and defend those aspects of the proposal to which I shall shortly refer.
Tobacco tokens were introduced as an offset for old-age pensioners to a very steep rise in the Tobacco Duty. They were introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), when Chancellor of the Exchequer, and they were one of a number of examples of his imaginative insight into matters of this description when he held that office.
The concession that was made by the granting of the tobacco tokens is one that experience has shown all of us to be

highly prized by the retirement pensioners who have been in receipt of it. In many cases, there is no doubt whatever that it has only been by the granting of the tobacco tokens that these old men, and, nowadays, some old women too, have been able to have the comfort and solace of tobacco in the last years of their lives.
Not only has this concession therefore attained very great importance in the lives and circumstances of our old people, but through the course of the years it has ceased to be treated as something separate and distinct from the normal family income and has now become completely interwoven into the peculiar pattern of the spending of retirement pensioners—a peculiar pattern imposed upon them, as we all know, by the narrowness and rigidity of the circumstances in which they have to live. Therefore, there is no doubt whatever that this is not an unimportant proposal in the Bill but is of very great importance to the majority of retirement pensioners.
Even some of those who in future will receive a net increase of 7s. 8d. on the existing pension—I am referring to those who do not get any assistance from National Assistance—will find that the abolition of the tobacco token is quite likely to limit them in the exercise of what they have found to be a great comfort in their existing conditions. I believe that many of them, addicted, as most of us have been at one time or another, to tobacco, would sacrifice essentials that are necessary for their physical well-being in order to get their smoke. This is, therefore, an important matter.
My concern, of course, is not so much for those who will receive the 7s. 8d. as a net increase but for that considerable fraction of the old-age pensioners living on National Assistance who now will get a nominal increase of 5s. a week in their scales—a miserable, mean addition to an inadequate allowance—but whose condition will be definitely very much worsened by the fact that the net addition, if they have been in receipt of tobacco tokens, will be only 2s. 8d. on the present scales. That is a completely derisory advance to give to these people at this time.
For them, the abolition of the tobacco tokens will be a heavy body blow and a


great hardship and one which, if it is permitted to go through, will be a disgrace to the Government and to the Minister. I am quite sure that all hon. Members of the Committee, on both sides, would not wish to cause grave hardship of this kind to this body of unfortunate people who, having no other resources, are compelled to depend upon the assistance given them by the Assistance Board.
3.45 p.m.
If a reasonable counter-proposal can be made, it should receive the support of all hon. Members. I suggest to the Minister that his proposal is not the only way in which he could accomplish his purpose We ought to ask ourselves whether, without too much disturbance to the Minister's financial calculations, there is not some other and better way by which we might, in due time, get rid of the tobacco token without hardship to those who now receive it. I believe that there is such a way.
We must all agree that, sooner or later, this anomaly would have to go, but must we accept the Minister's idea of doing it in one fell swoop, with all the great hardship inevitably caused by it, to this section of people? Could we not temper the wind to these shorn lambs by extending the period over which abolition might be effected? Could we not accept the idea which I am about to suggest, which would give the Minister his result, but not immediately?
Instead of abolishing the tobacco token for everybody when the Bill becomes law, why not put a ban against new applicants for the tokens? Let those who are now in receipt of tokens work out their short remaining time in receipt of them, but do not add any others who have never yet had them. If we adopted this proposal, it would have the effect that a very considerable part of the £16 million that the right hon. Gentleman intends to save in the first year must continue to be paid. We all know, however, that it would be a rapidly diminishing sum. In the natural course of things old-age pensioners die.
Therefore, from the day that the proposal became law, the amount of money having to be provided for the tobacco tokens—[Interruption.] I do not know why the Financial Secretary to the Treasury thinks that this is a subject fit

for sniggering. From the very day that the proposal was passed into law, the amount of money that would have to be provided for tobacco tokens would be a diminishing amount; and as everybody realises, before many years had gone the Minister's objective would be realised and the last recipient of tobacco tokens would have ceased to trouble either the Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): I was sniggering at the silliness of an hon. Member who does not think that that would take thirty years or more to accomplish.

Mr. Paton: Whether that is a relevant observation I do not know, but it does not indicate that the Treasury has the least imagination, sympathy or grasp of what is involved in a question of this kind. Even if it took thirty years, why not do it? Remember that the heavy charge is a heavy charge only at the beginning. As I have pointed out, it would be a diminishing quantity with every month that passed, and a rapidly accelerating diminishing quantity as time went on.
If that is too ambitious a project—

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I hope that my hon. Friend will not accept too readily the intervention of the Financial Secretary. I do not know how many old-age pensioners live to be 95, but it cannot be a very large number.

Mr. Paton: I was saying that if the Minister considers that that is too ambitious a project, I have an alternative which will meet the worst of the need. It is that if my suggestion cannot be applied to all old-age pensioners in receipt of tobacco tokens, it should be applied to the much smaller number in receipt of National Assistance. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is better."] It is not better, but it is an alternative.
I do not have the remotest idea what it would cost, but I cannot imagine that the cost would be anything in the neighbourhood of the total cost of applying my suggestion to all retirement pensioners. I hazard a guess—the Financial Secretary may be able to tell me whether it is right or wrong—that the cost would be about £67 million a year. If so, then at least over the first year the cost would be covered by the surplus of income over expenditure resulting from the financial


juggling of the Bill. In subsequent years, the cost would rapidly decrease and it could not be said that the cost would be an insuperable obstacle, provided that the Minister has the will to give effect to the suggestion.
I know that I am speaking for every hon. Member when I beg the Minister in this matter to remember the plight of these miserable people—and they are miserable. They are haunted every day by the twin enemies of old people—lack of warmth, and hunger. All they get through National Assistance is an existence level of benefit and to a certain extent they are, therefore, always deprived of comforts and amenities to which all of us are so accustomed that we do not even realise that we have them.
It is for the sake of those people that I ask the Minister to consider at least the alternative proposal and, having thought about it, to implement it on Report.

Mr. Hugh Dalton: I take a rather special interest in this matter since, as has been said several times, it was I who introduced these tokens in my Budget of April, 1947. Very briefly, I want to remind the Committee of the position with which we were then dealing. I had put up the Tobacco Duty by nearly 50 per cent. That was a shock to some people, as I intended it should be, because my purpose was to check smoking and save dollars. I also got much additional revenue, although that was not my primary purpose.
It was reported to me that two Conservatives travelling together in a train said, "This so-and-so has got us whatever we do. If we go on smoking, he will get the money, and if we stop smoking, he will save the dollars." I was rather delighted to have been enabled to create that dilemma for some.
As a result of that steep increase in duty, with the purpose of which there was broad sympathy at that time, the price of a packet of 20 cigarettes rose from 2s. 4d. to 3s. 4d., or, for cheaper brands, from 1s. 9d. to 2s. 6d. I was pressed by a large number of my hon. Friends to seek some means of cushioning that additional burden—admittedly and deliberately a heavy burden if smoking was continued on the

previous scale—for old people whose habits by the time they had reached pension age were well formed and who, if they had been smokers for many years, would have felt it a grievous hardship suddenly and sharply to have cut down their consumption of tobacco.
We therefore set about devising a plan by which that cushioning should take place. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), at that time Minister of National Insurance, and his and my officials, went into conclave on the matter. The officials told us that this was an almost impossible idea and they deployed formidable difficulties of many kinds. My right hon. Friend and I listened to them with full understanding—I hope—of the difficulties, and at the end I said to them, "We have listened with great attention to the very clear explanation which you have given of all these great difficulties, but I have great confidence in your administrative ingenuity and in your general ability and knowledge of these matters, and I am sure that, having explained these great difficulties so clearly, you will be able to find a way round them and an answer to them."
It is not always a bad approach for a Minister to speak in that sense. Our confidence was fully justified, because within a few days our officials and advisers brought forward the scheme which it is today being proposed to destroy and in defence of which I am speaking.
The tobacco token scheme which we have had for ten years has brought great comfort and satisfaction to literally millions of old people, and has been a humane adjustment of our tax law which was bearing very hard and grievously on a certain section of the community. It has always been open to argument that this scheme was anomalous and peculiar and that, while it might serve a transitory purpose, it should not be part of our long-term tax pattern.
I confess that it has always been open to argument that the scheme might be abolished, either in one operation, or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. J. Paton) suggested, in a graduated operation. The essential proviso has been that when this benefit was removed from a section of the people particularly grateful for it


and appreciative of it, it should be merged into some substantial and general increase of benefit. I say at once that if the Minister had brought forward a Bill increasing old-age pensions, as we have proposed, by £1 a week, we should have looked at this proposal with a slightly more tolerant eye.
I will not labour the simple arithmetic constantly put forward by my hon. Friends, that the Government are offering only 10s. generally and only 5s. to people on National Assistance and that it is totally wrong, disproportionate and socially unjust to snatch away this 2s. 4d. at this time. It may be done at another time and against another and more generous background, but it is totally unjustifiable against the present background and in relation to this especially mean Bill.
I want to deal with some of the arguments used to justify taking the decision now. In particular, I want to refer to the argument used by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, whom I am glad to see in his place as I warned him that I would refer to this matter, in his observation on 13th November, when he was moving the Financial Resolution.
4.0 p.m.
I will quote in a moment what the Financial Secretary said, so that we can judge what meaning should be attached to the words he used, but before I do so I wish to say that I take them to mean that the hon. Gentleman is charging the old people with massive cheating and deception. That is how I interpret the words which he used, and he will no doubt correct me if he thinks that his words bear another interpretation. What he said was this:
It was a complicated scheme, difficult to work out and expensive to operate. It costs about £125,000 a year to operate the scheme.
These are the words of which I morally complain:
When it came into force about 1,400,000 retirement pensioners benefited from it, about 40 per cent. of the total. That figure has now risen to 2,600,000, or 54 per cent. It is a remarkable but little noticed sociological fact that the proportion of habitual smokers among retirement pensioners has risen from 40 per cent. to 54 per cent. over the last ten years. Or has it? "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1957; Vol. 577, c. 1088–9.]
I judge that to be a sour little sneer, a dirty little smear, against large numbers of the old folk from whom these

tokens are now to be snatched away. I say that there is no great difficulty in explaining, without imputing deceit or humbug to any of the old people, the increase in the percentage, and I will offer some reasons why I say that. There is no difficulty in explaining the substantial increase in the percentage over these ten years.
In the first place, at the beginning of the ten years, it was a new and unfamiliar procedure. I have no doubt at all that in the first year a large number of the old people who were fully entitled to these tokens did not realise it or did not know how to obtain them. That will explain why, at the beginning, the proportion of old people claiming was unexpectedly and unreasonably low. Many people should have got them right from the start, but did not claim for some time. That is the first reason.
Gradually, as years passed, the procedure became more familiar, and a smaller number can be deducted on grounds of ignorance of what they were entitled to. That is one factor, and the second is this. The total number of old people has, of course, gone up over the period. Roughly, the number of old-age pensioners has gone up from 3½ million ten years ago to 4,800,000 today, and new age groups in ten successive annual stages have come within the ambit of the concession.
Everybody knows that within the age groups now just coming into entitlement to the old-age pension, the habit of smoking, whether good or bad, has been steadily growing through many decades. Women have been joining in in great numbers within the memory of all of us. Therefore, each new annual age group entering the scheme can be expected to bring with it a larger percentage of habitual smokers, and if we carry on this process over the ten years we shall find a substantial increase in the percentage of habitual smokers among old-age pensioners as a whole.
This is quite simple arithmetic, and I must say that it is very wrong, in my view, for this insinuation to be made by a Minister who should be looking at this matter rather more dispassionately, and who, after all, was once a professor of Greek. The hon. Gentleman ought to have gone into this with a little more intellectual analysis than by just flinging


vague accusations against large numbers of old folk.
Let me, by way of emphasising what I have said about the gradual increase in the habit of smoking, recall that ten years ago, when this scheme was instituted, the people now just becoming entitled to the old age pension, were men of 55 and women of 50. Who, with any knowledge of social habits, will deny that in that group there would certainly be a much larger percentage of habitual smokers than in the earlier group, the men of 65 and the women of 60? Everybody knows that that must be so, and, therefore, I do not think that there is any difficulty at all in explaining this increase.
The Financial Secretary, in the words that he used and in the sneering tone in which he used them, has insulted many old people by insinuating that a large number of them have been cheating the Treasury. He said, in effect, that in his considered judgment, with all the resources of his own intellect and of the Treasury at his disposal, he had come to the conclusion that a large number of our old people are cheats. I have no doubt that at the next General Election that phrase will be placarded all over South-West Wolverhampton, and will be tied to his tail like a tin can.

Dame Irene Ward: I am very sorry for the old-age pensioners that the decision has been taken to do away with the tobacco tokens, because I fully realise what a great pleasure and comfort they have been to many of them, both men and women, who have had that little concession and have been able, for some considerable time, to have made use of them. I know how irritated they will be, and I sympathise with them.
I should like to make one comment, in passing, on what the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) has just said. I think it very remarkable that more old-age pensioners have not claimed this privilege, because there always has been, and quite rightly, too, a great grievance among those who did not feel that they could honourably claim the tokens that they could not have the equivalent in small comforts. That has gone on for a very long time, and I sympathise with them, too.
I now want to say a word or two about the initiation of the tobacco tokens. The

right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland has announced that he put this additional tax on tobacco to stop the drain on our dollar reserves, but, of course, I also remember the right hon. Gentleman saying that he met every demand on the Treasury with a song in his heart—

Mr. Dalton: No.

Dame Irene Ward: If he had sung not so loudly—

Mr. Dalton: The hon. Lady may as well put that good phrase in its right context. What I said was—and I was dealing with the areas which had been intolerably distressed under Tory rule—that when I succeeded in getting provisions to steer new industry into those areas, very early in my career as Chancellor of the Exchequer, I would meet every demand for finance to establish new industries and new employment in those areas with a song in my heart.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Dame Irene Ward: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but, of course, he had no right whatever to claim that song, because the establishment of trading estates in those areas, which was the basis of the proposal, came from a Conservative Government. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman—and I apologise if that was the song he sang, but I am entitled to give my reply—that we have just had the 21st birthday of the Team Valley Trading Estate, when a plaque was placed on the administrative offices, where the first sod was cut in 1936?

The Chairman: That has not very much to do with the subject of the Amendment under discussion.

Dame Irene Ward: I am not going to get out of order, Sir Charles, but I am not going to allow the right hon. Gentleman to sail away with his insinuations. He is always trying to claim that he has done everything for the North-East Coast, which is just sheer nonsense and humbug. If he did not have a song in his heart over giving tobacco tokens to the old-age pensioners he should have done, because by increasing the tobacco tax he imposed a very great burden upon the old-age pensioners.
All I want to point out is that my complaint against the Socialist Government and the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, as a Socialist Chancellor, is that whatever they did they never had the money in the Treasury to meet the obligations of their legislation. The right hon. Gentleman nut that tax on tobacco at that time not only for the purpose of stopping the drain on our dollar resources, but also because the Treasury was beginning to get extremely hard up for money.

Mr. Dalton: Either these remarks are in order or they are not, Sir Charles. So long as you allow them to be made I judge that I have the right, briefly and tersely, to reply. The hon. Lady alleges that at the time the tobacco tax was increased there was no money in the Treasury, but at that time I had a surplus of £248 million for the financial year.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order—

The Chairman: I have a point of order first. If we try to keep the debate to the subject which is before the Committee we shall get on much better.

Dame Irene Ward: The right hon. Gentleman gave a detailed explanation of his action, but he failed to point out that there were no tobacco tokens for the sick, or for the war disabled, or for the industrially injured, or for the widows who were not drawing retirement pensions but had to pay excessive contributions in order to get those retirement pensions when they reached the appropriate age, or for the spinsters who were still struggling to earn their living and needed to pay for their stamps before they obtained their retirement pensions, or over a very wide field of people who were also entitled to them. Part of the trouble has been that for a very long time there has been a feeling among the sick, industrially injured, war disabled, police pensioners, Civil Service pensioners, Post Office pensioners and railway superannuitants, that not only were they deprived of their little bit of cherishing but that they had to contribute to the cherishing of other people.
This turned into a very human problem. I wish that we could have found some way of meeting the difficulty without producing an injustice in respect of

those old-age pensioners who had been drawing tobacco tokens. I want to say, with all the emphasise at my command, that, although old-age pensioners may have got their little comfort from tobacco tokens, consideration was not given to the men who were industrially injured, the men and women who were sick—particularly the men, because they smoke more than women—and whose families were reduced to sickness benefit, and those men who, deprived of doing their daily job, would have dearly loved to have tobacco tokens so as to get that little bit of comfort which other people had. The Socialist Government were always in such an unholy muddle that they had to make discriminations, and when they did so they discriminated against whole groups of equally worthy people.
4.15 p.m.
I tell hon. Members opposite quite straight that I am absolutely tired of hearing them talk as if they were the only people who had any regard for or understanding of the problems of the aged, the sick, the war disabled and the rest.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: It has taken you long enough to have some sympathy.

Dame Irene Ward: The Government of my party have done much more for the old-age pensioners and the disabled, sick and industrially injured than anything ever done by hon. Members opposite, and it is about time that I said so. I am saying it now so that it will be completely and absolutely understood.

The Chairman: Mr. Hubbard.

Dame Irene Ward: I have not quite finished, Sir Charles.

Mr. Percy Shurmer: On a point of order. Must we continue to listen to this diatribe when the important subject of old-age pensions is being discussed?

The Chairman: I thought that the hon. Lady had finished her speech.

Dame Irene Ward: I regret to say that the hon. Lady has not finished her speech.

Mr. Edward Short: Did you not call on my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard), Sir Charles?

The Chairman: I made a mistake. I apologise.

Dame Irene Ward: I shall not take very much longer. You would not want to deprive me of having a bat at my own Government, would you, Sir Charles?
The saving to the Treasury on these tobacco tokens is quite considerable. I want to tell my right hon. Friend that I hope plans will be so thought out that we shall be able to use the money that we save to put all old-age pensioners in an equal position. This money should be used to meet the position of those living on small fixed incomes. I hope that my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench will remember that. At the same time, I hope that they will sweep away the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland and blow him out of his seat on the Front Bench.

Mr. Thomas Hubbard: I do not wish to say anything unkind about the hon. Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward). I must be allowed to keep my feelings about it to myself. I consider it ungentlemanly to say anything unkind to the hon. Lady, so I will leave that task to some of my colleagues who are better fitted than I am for that kind of thing.
One point that must be mentioned, however, is that the hon. Lady failed to grasp that everybody upon reaching retirement age, and being qualified for retirement pension, enjoyed the benefit of the tobacco tokens scheme which the Government are now seeking to end.
I ought to state that I am addressing the Committee with the sanction of the National Old-Aged Pensioners' Association, and that my purpose is to express, on its behalf, the feelings of its members upon this matter. I have met them and I have been refreshed by the meeting. Officially, they have been able to give me their views.
The Committee must not forget that the old-age pensioners are the proudest people in the country. Many of them worked for a long time in industry for low wages in conditions of insecurity, and they are not people who, at any time during their lives, have enjoyed concessions. There are people today who are anxious to give them concessions. The old folk have a right to an adequate pension because of the contribution that they have

made to the economy of the country. The provision of such a pension would remove the need for any concession at all. I am sure that a great many people, including hon. Members on this side of the Committee, share that feeling.
The old-age pensioners welcomed the action taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) when he introduced the tobacco tokens. May I say, in passing, that it is refreshing to hear my right hon. Friend speaking again from the Front Bench? I wish that we could hear more contributions from him and less from some hon. Members opposite. I hope that we may hear him speak from the Government Dispatch Box at an early date. When my right hon. Friend gave that concession it was something in addition to the basic pension being drawn at that time, and the National Old-Aged Pensioners' Association expressed the gratitude of its members for that concession to my right hon. Friend and the Government of the day. The basic pension had then been lifted from 10s. to 26s. a week and at that time was reasonably adequate to, meet the needs of the recipients.
My right hon. Friend had realised that the heavy increase in the cost of tobacco—which I did not welcome at the time, because I am a heavy smoker—was likely to affect most those less able to afford the increased cost of smoking. The concession was deeply appreciated by the old-age pensioners, but at no time either then or since have the old-age pensioners agreed that they ought to have a concession. All along they have argued that they should receive an adequate pension, and they do not depart from that argument now.

Mr. Douglas Glover: The hon. Member was very fair when he said that the pension of 26s. a week was reasonably adequate. Is he suggesting that the National Old-Aged Pensioners' Association considers that it was reasonably adequate at the time, because the present purchasing power of the new pension is higher in real terms and, therefore, the pension now is higher than it has ever been before?

Mr. Hubbard: I am not to be shoved aside by that sort of statement. I can quote the experiences of old-age pensioners. I have visited them frequently.


We all know the cost of a bag of coal and I ask the hon. Member to visit these people during the next cold spell, when they are sitting shivering in their homes, and ask whether they are as comfortable now as they were when their pension was increased from 10s. to 26s. They are the people who, in my opinion, are most likely to know.
My argument today is not against the removal of the concession, because I still feel that old-age pensioners are entitled to consider themselves independent of concessions. They have their own pension rights and they should not be dependent on concessions, although I give full credit to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland for taking the action which he did. My complaint is that today the position is completely reversed. The Minister has removed the concession and, at the same time, he is cutting National Assistance by 5s. He has not removed the tobacco tokens at a time when pensioners can feel that their pensions are reasonably adequate.

Mr. Raymond Gower: Is not the hon. Gentleman misrepresenting the position? Is it not a fact that my right hon. Friend has, in effect, accepted the most recent decision of the National Assistance Board and did not the right hon. Friends of the hon. Member set up that Board in its present form?

Mr. Hubbard: When we accept a decision of the National Assistance Board we must accept it as it is, or reject it. We cannot complain here about the figure, and the hon. Member must confine himself to matters with which we can deal in this Committee.

Dame Irene Ward: The hon. Member has missed the point.

Mr. Hubbard: Let me finish the point. The National Old Aged Pensioners' Association sent a deputation to London to make representations to the National Assistance Board and it proved completely that the sum decided upon by the Board was absolutely inadequate. Some hon. Members on this side of the Committee went with the deputation and heard the argument advanced, and heard the deputation complimented by the Chairman of the Assistance Board on the way those arguments were presented. There

is no question about the Association being dissatisfied with the Assistance Board's supplementation.
I regret that we have not heard more speeches from hon. Members opposite. It may well be that they are either ashamed or afraid to speak. In the absence of such speeches we must draw our own conclusions. The Minister has decided to bring in a Bill to increase pensions and it is stated in the White Paper that there would be an increase for a single pensioner of from 40s. to 50s. There is also a reduction in the amount of National Assistance, which means that the increase is only 5s. At this time the Minister has chosen to remove the tobacco concession, which means that old-age pensioners who smoke are left with an increase of 2s. 8d.
We should not complain so much about the action of the Minister were he introducing a Bill which contained provisions to meet the needs of the pensioners. But it is the method which has been adopted and the timing of the removal of these tokens to which we object, because of the hardship it will cause to these old people. No one is more entitled to a smoke than the old-age pensioners. Other people are receiving benefits which are temporary, such as sickness and unemployment benefits, and I have never heard them complain that the old-age pensioners were getting preferential treatment over tobacco tokens.
I am able to say, with the approval of the National Association, that no complaint would have been made about the withdrawal of the tobacco concession had a like sum been added even to the 10s. by which the Minister proposes to increase the pension. I consider that to be a far better way of solving the difficulty than any which has been so far suggested. Having regard to the things he has said about his desire to help the old-age pensioners, the Minister might have increased the figure to 12s. 6d. and then I for one would not have been sorry to see the tobacco concession removed. That would have been a much fairer way of dealing with the matter.
4.30 p.m.
No one is happy about what is sometimes called a "hand-out". A concession is a hand-out, something given to people not as of right but to help them during a


time of difficulty. To depend upon handouts and coupons is soul destroying. I have no shame in telling the Committee that I can speak on this matter from personal experience.
In 1926, in common with all miners, I was locked out. My employers refused to continue my employment on the conditions that had been negotiated between miners and mine owners. I was disqualified, along with everybody else, from drawing unemployment benefit. Having a wife and two children, I qualified for public assistance.
We were compelled to live on 11s. a week. That would have been bad enough had it been paid in cash, but the amount was given in the form of a voucher. It gave us the experience of concessions, tokens and coupons. When my wife went out to buy groceries, the grocer had to go to other shops and purchase her meat and bread for her. We got no change from those vouchers, which had to be spent in one shop. We could not go from one shop to another to purchase what we wanted. That horrible experience we had for seven months.

Mrs. Alice Cullen: Does my hon. Friend remember how he could purchase from only one store?

Mr. Hubbard: Yes, I do. People do not like going back to recall their experiences, but we are entitled to do so because we know that no section of the community likes concessions or tokens. It would be much simpler for the Government to give the old-age pensioners what they ask for, an adequate pension.
Any Government supporter can test the adequacy of the pension if he cares to start from scratch with the old-age pensioners and try to live on the basic pension, even combined with National Assistance, for a period of months, with many things requiring replacement, clothes wearing out, with too much filler food to eat, and not enough protein, without a fire and without enough natural energy to generate heat. Those are the circumstances in which many of the pensioners live.
It is tragic to realise that on more than one occasion in Scotland last year an old-age pensioner who could not buy coal used pennies in the gas meter so as to

enjoy the heat from the gas cooker. That led to more than one tragedy, because the gas went off but they forgot the tap. When they put their next penny in, they were gassed. That is realism. We do not need figures to prove that those things have happened. It is within the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman that they have happened.
We would have accepted the abolition of concessions because the old-age pensioners are proud people who feel that they have the right to an adequate pension. I am very proud indeed that my hon. Friends have pledged themselves that, upon the return of a Socialist Government, they will give an adequate pension to these people and that there will be no further question of concessions.
I do not want to speak for too long, but I would recall that my hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. J. Paton) said that old-age pensioners died. That is tragically true. We all die. So do Governments.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: This Government is dead already.

Mr. Hubbard: Yes, and I shall not feel entirely happy until after the burial service. I was chastised yesterday from this side of the House because I said that I believed that many Tories individually were kindly people. I believe that is true. I said I had found them so individually, but that, unfortunately, collectively, it was like trying to wring blood out of a stone to get them to do anything. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) said rather strong words about me, but I still think I am right. Individually, many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Government side have sympathy with the Scottish Old-Aged Pensioners' Association. So has the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth.

Mr. Winterbottom: But they go into the Lobby against us.

Mr. Hubbard: Yes, and that is just the answer. They will do that again tonight, although I hope that I shall be proved wrong.
I appeal to the Minister. He could easily give these matters further consideration and come back on Report with Amendments. To accept the Amendment


now before the Committee would do no harm to the finances of the country and to refuse it will not rescue the Government from economic bankruptcy. I am satisfied that if the right hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to find out the real position of the old people he would not have withdrawn the tobacco token.
I have listened to the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary. On more than one occasion she has, unfortunately, suggested that old people did not spend their money as wisely as they should. I have heard her say that she thought the pension was adequate to the needs of the old-age pensioners at this time.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Edith Pitt): indicated dissent.

Hon. Members: Oh, yes.

Mr. Hubbard: The hon. Lady even cited her father as an example. She said that her father told her that he was delighted to get £2 for nothing. Most old-age pensioners get the pension in respect of their contributions and not for nothing. I was very sorry to hear the hon. Lady making remarks like that about old-age pensioners. I heard her talking about betting on horses and making other bets. I do not know whether old-age pensioners make bets or not, but I am satisfied that an old-age pensioner's monthly bet would not worry the "bookie," whichever way it went.
Let the Minister, in the dying days of the Tory Government, do something which will help to support the self-respect of the oldest and poorest section of the community.

Mr. Gower: I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard) has addressed himself very widely to this subject and embarked on an extensive survey of the whole question. All I should like to observe is that, whatever defects there are in the administration of this Government, I assert without fear of contradiction that the performance of this Government has been incomparably better than that of the party opposite.

Mr. William Ross: We contradict the hon. Member.

Mr. Gower: It is a coincidence that this party has now been in power for almost exactly the same length of time as the party opposite was in power—six and a half years—and, during the whole time the party opposite was in power, the total increase granted to old-age pensioners amounted to 16s.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: When we came into power the pension for an old couple was £1 a week—10s. for the man and 10s. for the woman. In 1946 we increased it to 42s.

Mr. Gower: The comparable figure of 10s. was increased to 26s., which represents an increase of 16s. That represented, not the leeway to be made up for a few years, but the leeway of the whole period of the war. When my right hon. Friend's proposals become law we shall have increased the pension for all pensioners, except those affected by National Assistance Board grants—for four out of five pensioners—by a sum which, inadequate though it may be, will exceed by a considerable sum the total increases granted by the party opposite.
That is an unanswerable fact. I know that hon. Members opposite make much bigger play of these matters than my hon. Friends did when they were in office. There are honourable exceptions, but many hon. Members opposite have used this question as a matter of party politics. That has been shown by the withdrawal of many old-age pensioners from their branches because they feel they have become too political. Whatever may be said, the performance of successive Ministers in this Government, on the figures I have quoted, has been incomparably better than the performance of hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Hubbard: I wonder if the hon. Member remembers the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Bill of 1940, passed by his right hon. Friends, which gave an increase to old-age pensioners of 9s. totally tied up with the means test and with not a penny increase on the basic pension? That was during the war.

Mr. Gower: My comparison was not between the Government of 1940 and later Governments, but between the two Governments—the Labour Government, which had six and a half years in power, and this Government, which has had six and a half years in power. That is


a much more appropriate comparison, because the party opposite has shed crocodile tears about this matter and made political capital out of the hardships of many decent people. The hon. Member knows that he was misleading the Committee in suggesting that my right hon. Friend has given a single pension.

Mr. George Thomas: rose—

Mr. Gower: I will give way in a moment. My right hon. Friend has followed the recommendations of the National Assistance Board, which was set up in its present form by the party opposite. It is open to the hon. Member to submit that the Board was set up in an inadequate way.
The party opposite is really asserting that Assistance scales should have the same increase as the increase in pensions. I do not demur that if the Board had been given powers for that purpose that might well have been the case, but surely the fact that the increases in pension given by my right hon. Friend exceed the recommendations of increases by the National Assistance Board is itself proof that my right hon. Friend is giving an increased pension beyond that which is warranted by the scales laid down by the Board.

Mr. G. Thomas: The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) said that he was giving way to me. Does not the hon. Member addressing the Committee have a chance to hear my question?

The Temporary Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) will have his turn. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard) caught my eye.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Hubbard: The hon. Member for Barry accused me of misleading the Committee in regard to the National Assistance Board. I do not think he knows much about the circumstances of the National Assistance Board. In fact, the Board is reported on from time to time and its duties are clearly defined. From time to time it gives advice to the Minister on the amount of National Assistance. Recommendations from the Board

brought to this House can be either rejected completely or accepted by the House. That is the job of the Board, so there was no misrepresentation so far as I was concerned.

Mr. Gower: That does not alter by one iota the fact that the Assistance Board had judged how much to grant on certain scales and that the proposals of my right hon. Friend are in excess of the recommendation; he has, in fact, gone a little further.

Mr. G. Thomas: Has not the hon. Member for Barry done his right hon. Friend the Minister the favour of at least reading his speech on this question? The Minister made it clear that it is a matter of policy for him to narrow the gap between the basic rate and Assistance rates.

Mr. J. Paton: Widen the gap.

Mr. Thomas: The Minister has spoken about it. The hon. Member for Barry needs to remember that the Minister has taken full responsibility and must take responsibility for what the Assistance Board does. The fact that the Chairman of the Board is a former Tory Member of Parliament is not without significance.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Before my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) replies, may I ask him, in the course of his reply, which I am sure will be most cogent and objective, to say whether the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) meant that the gap had been widened or had been narrowed? Which did he mean? He cannot have it both ways at one and the same time.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Gower: I will give way in a short time, but I want to say a few words myself. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) said that the effect of the action of the Minister is to narrow the gap. Of course that may happen from time to time, but the fact is that the Minister has increased pensions by a very substantial amount, which may be compared with previous increases and with what the party opposite failed to grant.

Mr. Winterbottom: The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) agreed in effect that the difference in the new Assistance


scales certainly lowered the effect of the new basic pension. If that is so, can we have an assurance that when the National Assistance scales are debated we shall have the assistance of the hon. Member in raising them?

Mr. Gower: The hon. Member did not hear my previous remarks. I said that my right hon. Friend had accepted the recommendation of the National Assistance Board. In a few months, if there are reasons, the National Assistance Board can certainly make another recommendation to my right hon. Friend. The hon. Member will recall that there have been far more increases in Assistance scales than those which have necessitated legislation of this kind.
In reply to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs, who made such a lot of capital out of what he professed to be the inadequacy of these proposals, I should point out that this has never been a living pension. Although hon. Members opposite in some mysterious way pretend that a person could live on 26s. a week when they were in office, we know that it has never been a living pension. I do not doubt that in different circumstances we could have a sum of money payable to all aged people which would be adequate to their needs. In some countries that has been attempted, but it is significant that in many countries where that happens the payment is not enjoyed as of right but is given to persons who have less than a certain figure of income. We have attempted to do it for everyone, irrespective of means. If, in the view of the party opposite, the pension is sufficient, why was the Assistance Board retained? If the pension were enough to live on, why did the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) want to have the National Assistance Board?

Mr. A. E. Hunter: rose—

The Temporary Chairman: Order.

Mr. Gower: I have not finished—

The Temporary Chairman: I appreciate that. I think it would facilitate the debate if the Committee bore in mind exactly what we are discussing. It is the Amendment on the Notice Paper. I hope hon. Members will try to relate their speeches as closely as possible to that Amendment.

Mr. Gower: In conclusion, I should like my right hon. Friend when he replies to explain whether in assessing these scales he did or did not take careful account of the value of the tobacco concession which has been withdrawn. It seems to me that had he done it on a slightly different technical basis, had he given, for example, an increase of 8s. 6d. instead of 10s. and the balance in lieu of tobacco to all pensioners, some of these criticisms would not have been forthcoming to the same degree. On the other hand, that might not have been the case. Whatever the shortcomings of my right hon. Friend's proposals, whatever the shortcomings of his predecessors proposals, they are and have been immeasurably superior to anything done by the party opposite.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: I have always thought that there is not a great deal of merit in bandying arguments across the Committee when we are discussing a matter of such very great concern to so many people in this country. The only observation I would make on the comments of the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) is that maybe quite unwittingly he has insulted a good many of my colleagues and myself and that when he attributes to us alone political motives in the arguments we advance on behalf of old-age pensioners, he is really not being strictly accurate.
I have been a member of the Old-Age Pensioners' Association since its inception. I have tried in all the years I have been connected with it, since before the war, to help these people to organise themselves so that they can establish certain rights within the community. I have done so because I have seen the hardships suffered before the war by the old people and I was determined that anything that might lie within my power to do to help would be placed at their disposal. I regret that the hon. Member for Barry could not give us just one or two minutes of his time to hear the reply I am making to him.
I was most interested in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard), who speaks with a deep sincerity and great emotion on matters which concern old-age pensioners. We attach considerable weight to the arguments he advances. I hope that the appeal he has made to the Minister today will not have fallen on deaf ears


and that he will give it due consideration. We on this side of the Committee hope that he will accept the Amendment.
I want to recall to the mind of those hon. Members in the Committee today, and particularly to the mind of those who were in the Committee when the tobacco duty concession was first made, the circumstances in which it was granted. It was, let us admit, a unique concession. Members of the Committee at that time were pleading with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) to make all sorts of concessions to all sorts of people. It was a unique concession, because it was made at a unique time and on a unique occasion.
I would remind the Committee that this concession was granted in April, 1947. We had just come out of a terrible war, a war which had left this country bankrupt, to use the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill). Those are not the words of any Socialist. Those words are on record in the diary of Henry Morgenthau, who was the American Secretary of State. That was the circumstance in which we found ourselves in Britain at that time.
It is rather interesting to note, too, that even prior to that the United States of America thought that the advent of a Socialist Government in this country was the appropriate moment to deprive us of lend-lease aid. So we were in the grip of the almighty dollar, and my right hon. Friend was in grave difficulty to find the necessary dollars wherewith to sustain the life of this country. Searching around for means whereby he could discourage people from buying commodities that required dollar expenditure, he chose, among those items, an increase in the tobacco duty to discourage people from smoking.
I was the Member—and that is why I have sought to catch your eye, Sir William—who put this idea into the mind of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, and I would quote from the speech I made on 17th April, 1947. It was following that speech that my right hon. Friend was good enough to say that he would give due consideration to the observations I had made and see whether it was possible to make this

concession to the old folk. It was, therefore, in circumstances of great difficulty. I remember being extremely critical of the then Chancellor on what I characterised as being the vicious tax that he had placed upon tobacco.
At that time, let us remind ourselves, he increased the price of cigarettes of the poorer qualities from 1s. 9d. to 2s. 6d. and from 2s. 4d. to 3s. 4d. This commodity has taken a number of increases since then, very largely due to the cost of the tobacco leaf itself. This would seem to indicate that rather than establishing a case for the removal of this concession for the old folk the case for its retention is strengthened unless the Government are prepared to make better provision for the old-age pensioners, which would enable them to meet these increased charges without any undue hardship being placed upon them.
I remember calling the attention of the Committee at that time to the fact that we were dealing with a population—a male population in particular—which had become so accustomed to the habit of smoking that it was well-nigh impossible for them to break it. I always said that one of the reasons why Chancellors increased tax on tobacco was because they knew that they were dealing with a habit which it was almost impossible to break. We would see a decline in consumption, perhaps for two months, and then consumption would start soaring again.
I said at that time:
My final point is this. Other hon. Members have mentioned the extreme penal action which this will inflict upon the old people who are drawing old-age pensions. I really cannot accept the view that it is impossible to make provision whereby they could get their bit of tobacco at a cheaper rate. I admit that a system of concessions would have to watertight, but what is against the issue of vouchers with the pensioner's pension book, enabling him to obtain tobacco at a cheaper rate on surrender of the vouchers?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1947; Vol. 436, c. 376.]
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland, I do not believe that it was ever envisaged by anyone that this concession would have to be continued in perpetuity. Not one of us had such a thought in his mind. It was an expedient to meet a given set of circumstances at the time.
5.0 p.m.
It is noteworthy to find that, contrary to all belief, there has not been any very


great abuse of the privilege. My own opinion is that, if Members were even more careful about signing the declarations on tobacco concession forms, there would probably be not even such abuse as we do know to exist in a few instances. I have said before in the House that I consider there is a responsibility on Members of Parliament who sign the forms clearly to bring to the attention of those on whose behalf they are signing exactly what is involved. Nevertheless, it has been admitted in the Committee today that the abuse is so small as to be almost infinitesimal.
If the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance had had in his mind that the time had come to abolish this concession, he should have paid greater attention to the amount to which the old-age pension could be increased before deciding finally to abolish it. I will not argue with hon. Gentlemen opposite who try to suggest that their Government rather than ours has given the most substantial increase in old-age pensions. It is clearly on the record that the first increase given, given by the Labour Government of 1945, was the greatest single act of social insurance we have ever seen in this country. It was, moreover, far in excess of anything recommended by the Beveridge Report at the time.
Our duty as a House of Commons is clear. It is certainly our duty as an Opposition to do our best to secure that the economy of the country is so organised that it can make adequate provision for people when they reach old age, and there can be very few hon. Members even on the benches behind the Government who really believe that we are making adequate provision today for our old people. It was for that reason that I intervened to support the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. J. Paton), sustained by my right hon. Friend who was the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time the concession was introduced.
I appeal to the Minister now to reconsider the matter. In all the circumstances, his proposal does seem to be rather mean. I am not one to say that the Minister has necessarily an attitude of mind that one would characterise as mean. I have talked about these matters with him. Indeed, after the conversations I have had with him, I am all the more surprised that he

has brought his proposal before us. We appeal to him to reconsider it. For the amount of money he will save for the Treasury, he will cause quite unnecessary hardship to those who ought still to be recipients.

Mr. R. H. S. Crossman: The Minister will agree, I think, that the arguments put from this side have made a very powerful case. I have listened to all the speeches, I think, and I hope he has noticed that no one has said that, in principle, we believe that this type of concession is the sort of way old-age pensioners should be treated. Every single person has said that, in principle, of course, there should be a money payment sufficient to enable pensioners to buy a decent standard of living. The whole case that we put has been that it is outrageous to withdraw a concession in the kind of package deal the Minister is providing in the Bill.
I would emphasise one point made in the very moving speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Hubbard). The fact is that this concession has been, in the course of ten years, built into the standard of living of millions of old-age pensioners—it now forms part of their standard of living—and if it is taken away their standard of living is thereby cut. It is a cut of 2s. 4d. a week to an enormous number of pensioners who have been accustomed to it.
I put this question to the Minister. Is it his view that an increase of 7s. 8d. in old-age pensions was the right increase? If that is his view, why has he made it 10s.? If he thinks that 10s. is the right amount, why not candidly and openly give 10s. and then say, "I am, in addition, removing the tobacco concession and, therefore, giving an extra 2s. 4d."? He really must answer and say which is the correct increase in this package deal.
I speak as someone who has purged himself of the habit over twelve months, but clearly those who smoke regularly will, after this, deny themselves 2s. 4d. worth of essential food or something else in order to continue smoking. The right hon. Gentleman must realise that the narrowness of the means of the old-age pensioner is such that a cut of 2s. 4d. is a devastating shock. If a man has to cut 2s. 4d. from his essential expenditure, as most of them will do in order to continue smoking, he will be driven even


nearer to the starvation level; and the right hon. Gentleman insists that he is legislating for people who are at the edge of destitution. That applies to a large number of old-age pensioners, and it is no exaggeration to say it. Everyone knows the ghastly fact that very many pensioners, not only those taking National Assistance, are very near the poverty line. In this connection, I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. J. Paton) that to suggest that the concession could be left only to those who receive National Assistance is to neglect the fact that there are many not taking National Assistance who are in fact as entitled to it as those who are. Therefore, if we gave it to those on National Assistance, we should be denying it to those who are proud—and pride is a virtue we should not underrate in this country today—not to take National Assistance.
Does the Minister say it is 7s. 8d. or 10s.? if it is 7s. 8d. let us have it down. I will tell the Committee why he did not make it 7s. 8d. If he had done so, everyone would then have known that this was a swindle. The artfulness of the Bill was to make the increase sound a good, round sum. "Ten bob" sounds quite a lot until one calculates what the subtractions are for smoking and for rent.
I will put the question to the Minister in another form. The key to the case was given in his speech on 13th November, when he said, as we all agree, that the tobacco concession would at some time have to be abolished. But he went on to say:
Therefore, for some time we have held the view that this concession should be brought to an end, but it could in fact be fairly and sensibly brought to an end only at a time when substantial increases were being given in the rates of benefit."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1957; Vol. 403, c. 982.]
I accept those words. The key question we are discussing is, has there been a substantial increase in benefit sufficient to justify the withdrawal of the concession?
In this connection, I should like to draw attention to the rather remarkable article which appeared in The Times on 7th November, in which the pension increases were analysed. The Times came to the conclusion that the aim of the Minister was not to make any substantial increase at all but exactly to restore the

purchasing power or the standard of living of pensioners to that which they enjoyed for the first time in 1946. Both the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary are trying to pretend that pensioners are 5s. or 6s. better off than they were in 1946. That can be suggested only if one neglects the tobacco concession and neglects the increases in rent. It is no good saying that they are covered by National Assistance, because there are many pensioners who do not take National Assistance and for whom the increases in rent are a real burden.
Since he does not like my figures, I will read to the Minister what was said in The Times leading article. Let him try and argue with this.
An index of 'working-class' living costs, allowing for big rent increases, suggests that pensions of the 1946 real value would have to amount to 47s. (single) and 76s. 6d. (couple) in 1958. The rates proposed are 50s. and 80s.
The difference is 3s. and 3s. 6d.
The higher figures have come about because the Government, in addition to making the adjustment to higher prices, have had the courage to abolish the tobacco subsidy for pensioners who happen (or claim) to be smokers…
What does that mean? It means that, if we take the tobacco concession into account, the pensioner is precisely 8d. better off in 1957 than he was in 1946. That is what it means in terms of standard of living. Therefore, this famous substantial improvement is, as I said on the Second Reading, a swindle. It is simply not true, and the Minister knows that it is not true.
The Times quite rightly says that the Minister is no fool. He can add up. He knows that what he has done is to restore the standard of living of the pensioner to what it was in 1946. The standard of living is not the only question. There are other things to consider besides the standard of living. If all the Minister has done is to restore the standard of living of 1946, then to deny a concession which was made as an addition to the pension rate at a time of special hardship is an outrage to the pensioner.
We must have a serious answer to this question, because we assume that the Government want to make at least a slight improvement in the pensioners' standard of living. I do not believe that the Minister holds the view of the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower)—who I see has


left the Chamber after his speech—who said that if we give to the pensioners the standard of living which they enjoyed in 1946 then we have done something princely and it is a great triumph. I do not think the Minister believes that.
The Minister knows quite well that a pensions Bill in 1957 should improve the standard of living of the pensioner and make it substantially better than it was in 1946. I am not ashamed to say that, because everybody on this side of the House knew when we gave the pensioner a subsistence of 26s. in 1946 we could not continue it indefinitely. It was the first pension of its sort, and it was given in a period of great austerity. We knew that as the country became wealthier the slice of national cake going to the pensioner should get bigger.
The size of the National Debt has gone up by 60 per cent. since 1946. Most people are considerably better off now than they were then. We say to the Minister that it is outrageous to withdraw the tobacco concession as part of a package deal which puts the pensioner just about where he was in living standards in 1946. If the Minister admits that he is wrong, then we shall vote against him and the country will know the issues. I resent the attempt of the Minister and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to use the figures to pretend that they have made a sufficiently substantial improvement to justify the removal of the tobacco concession when, in fact, they have not made a substantial improvement at all.
5.15 p.m.
The Minister might be able to deceive the House of Commons, but the old-age pensioners will know quite well what their standard of living is. It will not take them very long to discover whether it is a substantial improvement or not. I noticed that Members on that side of the Committee did not dare to support the withdrawal of the concession because they were afraid that if their constituents read the speeches they would know that it was wrong. That is why there are so many absentees on the Government side. They would rather be out of the Chamber while the Bill is being pushed through by the Minister because nobody would dare to speak in favour of it. All hon. Members opposite know that it is a mean action combined with a clever jockeying of

figures by which the Government hope to deceive themselves that they have done something decent for the pensioner when they have done nothing of the kind.

Mr. Tom Brown: I want to reinforce in a few words what I said on the Second Reading of the Bill.
When the Joint Parliamentary Secretary replied to the debate on that occasion, she quoted some words to which I gave expression, namely, when I said that the tobacco token was illogical. That was true. I am still of the same belief. It is illogical because it is unequally applied to the old-age pensioners. Let me quote my exact words:
It is not my intention to say very much about the repeal of the tobacco token, which, to me, is the last straw. I am the first to admit that this tobacco token, when it was put upon the Statute Book in 1947, manifested a keen desire to help the old folk.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Hugh Dalton) has sustained that. He has told us why the tobacco concession was introduced in 1947, and the Committee knows why he introduced it. Then I went on to say:
I know that it is illogical, but I think that taking it off now is inopportune in this sense. In one, two or three years' time, we shall have to consider a comprehensive pensions scheme. Whether it comes from that side of the House or this, we shall be forced into that situation, and in my judgment it would have been much better if we had allowed the tobacco tokens to remain for that period and to have removed them when the comprehensive scheme was put before the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1957; Vol. 577, c. 1041.]
I am still of the opinion that the time is inopportune to remove this concession, and it is causing great resentment among the old-age pensioners.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard), I, too, move about the branches of the Old-Age Pensioners' Association, and I can say truthfully that never once in the thousands of branches I have visited has the Old-Age Pensioners' Association said anything about concessions. They do not want them. The old people and, I think, every reasonably minded man and woman, too, want a pension commensurate with a decent standard of life without any padding. But in a society where we are handing out a little concession here or a little concession there, we are missing the objective at which we should be aiming. It will not do. Society


is making an entirely wrong approach to pensions. What the pensioners are saying is, "It is about time all these little concessions came to an end. Give us an adequate pension upon which to live and you can have all the concessions." We have met that attitude before.
One of my hon. Friends on this side of the House brought forward a Private Bill to give concessions for cheaper bus fares, cheaper cinema tickets and cheaper football tickets, but these do not cut any ice when we consider the obligation resting upon the Committee. Is it an opportune time to remove the tobacco concession? In my judgment, it is not. When there is put before the Committee a comprehensive pension scheme which satisfies me that the basic pension is adequate for a decent standard of life, then I would be the first to vote for taking the concession away because it will give a greater degree of satisfaction to the old folk if they could have the pension which they are demanding and to which they are justly entitled.
Strong feelings have been expressed in this debate, and there is much bitterness in the letters that I have received this morning. I ask the Minister to have another look at this case to see whether he cannot allow the concession to continue for one, two or three years, as the case may be, and then, when we have the opportunity to get down to the realities of the situation of our pensioners, we shall be the first to help him to remove the concession. But be it remembered that if this is being done—and I sincerely hope that it is not being done on this side of the Committee—for purposes of political propaganda, I shall not be a party to it.
We ought not to indulge in matters of this kind in a search for political kudos. The question is: are we doing right? Are we acting honestly? Are we treating the old folks as they ought to be treated? I believe that if the Minister would examine the few things I have mentioned he would come to the conclusion that the time is not opportune to remove the concession. Let us wait for a year or two, until the comprehensive scheme comes before the House which will abolish all desire and all thought of any concessions being given to a worthy set of people by conceding a decent basic pension.

The Temporary Chairman: Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.

Mr. Fernyhough: On a point of order, Sir William. I wonder whether I might intimate to you that some of us may want to take part in this debate and that, therefore, the Minister might, perhaps, wait.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): On that point of order, may I be allowed to do now what I would in any case have done in the course of my speech, and that is to make an appeal to the Committee? We have a great deal of work before us, and we are still on the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor) last night. We have much work to do on many extremely important issues before we separate tonight.
I hope that I shall not have to ask the Committee to sit until an uncomfortably late hour; but if we do take so much time over an admittedly important Amendment, among other important Amendments, we shall have to ask the Committee to sit very late, because, hon. Members know, it is absolutely essential that we should get on if the benefits under the Bill are to be paid promptly and punctually.

Mr. Fernyhough: It is after 5.20 p.m., Sir William, and some of my hon. Friends, I know, have been waiting since 2.30 p.m. to speak.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is certainly not for me to regulate these matters. Indeed, I have no right or authority to do so. I was only making an appeal, particularly as some of the points raised, such as those dealing with the adequacy or otherwise of the increases, could, I should have thought, be argued at a later stage in this Committee.

The Temporary Chairman: It is, of course, quite in order for hon. Members to rise and catch the eye of the Chair after the Minister has spoken. Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will not repeat the appeal that I have made. I certainly have no desire to intrude on the rights of the Committee; but this is a Bill, whatever some may think about certain parts of it, that we all want to see become effective as speedily as possible. That


can only be done if there is a certain amount of give and take between the two sides—

Mr. G. Thomas: The Minister should give a bit more.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that the hon. Member will not think that I am being discourteous. It is not for me to regulate the selection of speakers. It is only for me, as the person having responsibility for the progress of the Bill, to try to judge the time, to look forward on the Notice Paper and to see what the position is likely to be. I should, I think, be lacking in my duty to the Committee if I let the matter go without giving a warning about the difficulties into which we may get later. And I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that he would have the right to reproach me if I acted otherwise.
I will now, if I may, deal with some of the matters that have arisen in the discussion. Let me say at once that I shall "let down" my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), who requested me to blow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) off the Front Bench opposite. On the contrary, like the lest of the Committee, I was delighted to see the right hon. Gentleman back at the Box for the first lime for some time—or, at any rate, for the first time recently that I have had the pleasure of hearing him. It gave rise to a very natural nostalgia for the times of some ten years ago. I thought, if I may say so, that it was particularly delicate of him to attend, as I suggested to him last night, the funeral celebrations of his "child."
The debate has revealed a remarkable unanimity. That is why I made my appeal a moment ago with, perhaps, more confidence than I might have done on other matters. There has been, with one or two exceptions, virtual unanimity in the view that the tobacco concession embodied in Section 4 of the Finance Act, 1947, was not, of itself, the sort of thing that anybody would want to see go on forever; and that, therefore, it was simply a matter of judgment whether or not the increases in benefit now proposed were sufficient to justify doing what, I think, most hon. Members on both sides want to do, which is to merge this particular

benefit in kind in a cash payment of pension.
That really narrows the debate to a quite extraordinary degree to the question of judgment, which the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) put very clearly, as to whether or not the improvements in benefit were themselves sufficient to enable this change, to use the words of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) "opportunely" to be made. None the less, I will say a word or two about the concession, because I think that it is important that it should be clearly known what its defects are. Indeed, the hon. Member for Mansfield, in moving this Amendment last night, said that he wanted me to say what were the grounds for abolishing it.
The grounds for abolishing it are three. The concession has outlived its usefulness; it is unfair as between pensioner and pensioner; and it is, therefore—and this is the third point—opportunely eliminated at a time when a substantial increase is being made in the rates of benefit. Those are the three reasons. We have had from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland, with great authority, the history of the concession, and I shall not go over that again. But I should like to emphasise to the Committee that since the beginning of the concession, and despite, I think, much genuine desire on the part of Ministers in both Governments to widen it, it has been found necessary to tie it, for simple but convincing administrative reasons, to the retirement pension book and the non-contributory old-age pension book.
That has meant, as several hon. Members have reminded the Committee, that other categories of people, equally on general social grounds entitled to this concession, have not been able to enjoy it. They have included those retirement pensioners themselves, who, owing to long-term treatment in hospital or long-term residence in an institution, have received their retirement pension by way of a payment on a schedule and not on an order book. Those pensioners have lost the concession.
On the other hand, those people who have no rights to retirement pension, but have been living on National Assistance, have never had the concession; nor, as such, has the war pensioner, the war widow, the Industrial Injury widow, the


public service pensioner, the teacher, the railway pensioner. In brief, many people whom we look at as being in the social pattern of retired persons living on a small fixed pension, have not enjoyed the concession because, despite the efforts made, it has been found quite impossible to administer except on the basis of the holding of a retirement pension book or a non-contributory old-age pension book.
That is why anybody who has held the office of Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in particular, or who has held my office, has received countless letters from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen protesting on behalf of constituents—and understandably so—that while the constituent's neighbour, who has a retirement pension book, has this privilege, the constituent, whose conditions may be no better—indeed, may be worse—does not have it.
I think that the Committee will make a great mistake if it under-rates the kind of feeling, that has been aroused as between those entitled to the concession and those who are not. Even among the holders of retirement pension books there has been an anomaly. The scheme has favoured the smoker, but has given no corresponding benefit either to the non-smoker or, indeed, to the person who, although he or she smokes, prefers to spend his or her money in a particular week on some other amenity of life. That has been a further source of difficulty.
5.30 p.m.
It is perfectly true, as the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland explained, that when he introduced this concession he was aiming at protecting existing retirement pensioners from a sharp rise in the cost of their tobacco. In other words, he was leaving them paying no more for their tobacco than they had been accustomed to do. But the situation now, ten years later, is quite different. The bulk of people now enjoying the concession have come on to pension since, and they, of course, find that just this one thing, tobacco, comes down in price when they come on pension whereas the other things which they equally want to buy remain at the prices which they have previously had to pay. Therefore, the original purpose of the duty relief has lost much of its validity.
It is also the case that the price of tobacco, sharply increased by the right

hon. Member for Bishop Auckland for reasons which he explained to us at the time, is, in fact, if we compare it with 1947, now very little out of line with the general rise in retail prices. Therefore, the argument for singling out the smoker for a concession not given to other people, though it had, I accept at once, considerable force at the time that the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for granting it, has with the passage of years and the changing price pattern lost the greater part of its force.
The tobacco concession has given rise, as we have heard in the course of the debate, to a very understandable view that those who do not smoke should receive concessions by way of cheaper tea or milk, or whatever it may be. Indeed, were we to persist with this concession, the case for providing alternative forms of concession for non-smokers would be strong. But we take the view, which is the broad view that, I understand, has been taken on both sides of the Committee during debate, that it is much better not to have these benefits in kind for the retirement pensioner, not, as it were, to have the soup kitchen approach to social service problems of this kind, but very much better to provide in cash the alternative to them, so that, among other things, the pensioner can spend his or her money and lay it out as he or she thinks best. I think that that is the general principle which is acceptable to the Committee and to public opinion outside.
Having got that far, I come to the relevant matter—I make no complaint whatever about its having been raised in the course of this discussion, indeed it is perhaps the main question on the Bill—of the increase in rates provided for in Clause 2 and in the Fourth Schedule. I do not know to what extent this issue will be raised again at subsequent stages. I only express the hope, which I expressed a few moments ago, that we shall not, in the particular circumstances of this Bill, seek to duplicate or triplicate discussions on points, however important.
The hon. Member for Coventry, East, in particular, raised this question and put to me in this context very fairly the recent leading article in The Times. On that, I will make two comments. In the first place, it is not clear at all what index The Times was


using for this purpose; and it is, secondly, material to note that The Times, in giving the figure of 7s. as being necessary to restore the value of the pension in 1946, was not relating that figure to contemporary prices, but to next year's prices.
I do not know, of course, what assumption The Times was making as to the movement of prices next year up to whatever date it selected as the basis. Whatever comes from that great newspaper has, I agree, to be treated seriously, because in its leading articles, whether one agrees with them or not, it always puts a point of view with clarity and force. It does not, however, really provide an effective support for the purpose for which the hon. Gentleman tried to use it, that is, to try to suggest that, so far as those pensioners who will be losing the tobacco token are concerned, there is no appreciable increase in benefits.

Mr. Crossman: If the right hon. Gentleman does not accept the suggested inference of The Times of living costs for his calculations, perhaps he could say on what basis he is calculating and what he calculates to be working-class living costs next year, because that is what we are discussing. What does he calculate to be the cost of living on which he justifies these proposed increases? If he will tell us that, we shall then be able to observe next year whether he is right or wrong.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am going on to develop the case, and no doubt the hon. Gentleman will find, whether he accepts my point of view or not—I think it rather doubtful whether he will—that I am putting as clearly as I can within the limits of time which I think proper at this stage the proper justification of the figures. But, before we pass from newspapers, as the hon. Gentleman has cited The Times I am bound to invite the attention of the Committee to the Manchester Guardian of 7th November. That newspaper, I may say, is not one which could be accused of any particular partiality for Her Majesty's advisers. Its leading article stated:
As Mr. Boyd-Carpenter said, the pension will now be worth more in real terms than ever before. The increase not only allows for the rise in prices; it provides for a genuine increase in purchasing power as well.
That is a very clear piece of evidence if we are to cite, as the hon. Gentleman

cited, newspapers in support of one's argument. Of course, if one takes the Index of Retail Prices, the case is even clearer. On that basis there is an increase of 7s. 8d. on the value of the pension in 1946 and of 12s. on the value to which hon. Gentlemen opposite raised it in 1951. Whichever index one takes, it is clear—and I would say, with respect to hon. Gentlemen opposite, that they do not strengthen their point of view by seeking to deny it—that this is a substantial increase in the rate of pension in real terms, raising it to a higher level than it has, in fact, ever attained before, that is to say, above the previous high—I was about to fall into the verbal slip of saying, the high "peak"—which it attained in 1955.
The case I am making is certainly sustained by the Index of Retail Prices and by such other judgment as one can bring to bear upon the figures not only for the cost of living, but for the other factors which, again and again, I have been urged to take into account, such as increases in wage rates and earnings. It is, of course, a fact, as the Committee is aware, that, as the Phillips Committee recommended, and as all who have spoken from this Box have said again and again, it is not simply a matter of a mathematical exercise or of the application of a slide rule when deciding where to raise particular levels under the scheme. Consideration has to be given to the factors mentioned in the recommendations of the Phillips Committee, but, in the final issue, it becomes a matter of judgment and decision. That is a point which should not be obscured in this discussion, even though it is a point which is, naturally, a little obscured by the cloud of tobacco smoke which arises on the Amendment.
As I have said before—and I repeat, as the hon. Member for Coventry, East asked me to—in the decision to raise the benefits to the proposed figure, account was taken and here I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower)—of the withdrawal of the tobacco token. One consequence that follows from that has not perhaps been fully appreciated. In deciding on this figure, we took account of what one might call the worst case—the habitual smoker who was losing this concession. But it will not have escaped the attention of the Committee that the benefit increase itself goes


in full to those who are non-smokers and have never enjoyed this concession, and applies, further, to the types of benefit—widowhood, sickness, unemployment, and so on—which never came within its scope.
If I may sum it up again, in deciding on the figure in the light of the various factors which I have mentioned, we took into account the intention to withdraw the tobacco token. We took into account and faced, if the Committee likes, the worst and most difficult case, with the result that those who are not suffering this withdrawal have got an even larger increase in their standards.
It seemed to us after considerable thought, as is, indeed, the view accepted generally in this Committee, that this tobacco concession was not a thing which it was desirable on its own merits to preserve indefinitely; but that it was only right to withdraw it at a time when substantial improvements were being made in the rates of benefit applicable to the people concerned. We took the view that in assessing those rates, by taking into account this fact, we were handling this matter in the interests not only of fairness between pensioner and pensioner, but also to the advantage of all the recipients of National Insurance benefits.
Even taking against myself the worst case—that of the person who is losing these vouchers—it is surely better to have the value in cash which he can spend as he wishes rather than in the form of a token which can be used for one purpose only. Even apart from the 7s. 8d. increase in the cash value of the benefits of such people, there is the additional factor of their getting the whole of their benefits in the form of cash and being able to use it as they think fit.
For those reasons, it seemed to us that this was the right occasion, as the Clause under discussion suggests, to withdraw this concession, and we feel that that is a decision whose rightness and fairness will—and I take up the challenge which was thrown to me across the Committee—be recognised next January by those directly concerned.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: I am sure the whole Committee will be very disappointed indeed that the right hon. Gentleman has been unable to

make any concession whatever to the moving pleas and the skilful arguments which have been advanced to him for a long time from this side of the Committee. The disappointment of the Committee will be felt even more deeply and widely outside among more than 2 million old-age pensioners whom he has just told he will discontinue his concession. It will be cold comfort to them to know that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that because most prices are rising, there is no reason to stabilise the price of one of the commodities which they buy, which, I think, was an accurate summary of the first part of his argument.
5.45 p.m.
I will not attempt to traverse all the arguments again. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we ought to pay some attention to the time that we devote to various Clauses, and therefore, I will keep my speech short. The nub of the question that we have been considering for nearly two hours is whether the increase proposed in the pension is substantial enough to justify the withdrawal of this concession. That is the essential point, and going with it is the corollary that if it is not substantial enough, what is the reason for withdrawing it? Having heard all that the right hon. Gentleman has said, I remain of the opinion that the increase is not substantial enough. Nobody who has listened to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) could think that the increase is substantial enough to warrant the withdrawal of this concession.
It is remarkable that there are two strange coincidences in what my hon. Friend referred to as the package deal which the Minister has put before us. One coincidence is that the increase in the retirement pension, in unemployment, sickness and other benefits under the Bill which will cost £167 million in the next full year, is to be met exactly by an increase of £167 million in the contributions. The other remarkable coincidence is that the cost of the war pension, which is £16½ million, is going to be exactly met by the cost of the withdrawal of the tobacco token. That is a very significant fact. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury was here earlier. I wish he were still here, because it seems to me that, in view of those figures, it is the


Treasury rather than the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance who ought to be replying to this debate.
It is pretty clear that what has happened is that the Minister has gone to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a set of propositions for increasing pension rates, including war pensions, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said to him, "You can have these if you so devise a scheme that there will not be an extra penny for the taxpayer to pay." "Not one penny," said the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "shall be taken away from the Surtax payers to whom I gave the concession last year. Take it away from anyone else you like, but not from them." So the Minister had to work out a scheme whereby the whole of the National Insurance benefits were paid for out of the increased contribution, and whereby somehow or other he could find the money for the war pensioners. He found the money for the war pensioners by withdrawing this concession.
It seems to us, after listening to all the arguments, that that is the way the thing was done. I do not know what the war pensioners will think of it when they realise that this is what has happened. I can well imagine a war pensioner, for example, drawing a 20 per cent. disability pension. He is to have an increase in his pension of 3s. 6d. a week. He is going to have to pay another 2s. a week for his increased contributions under the National Insurance Bill, and, as as he sadly reflects on the fact that he is left with only 1s. 6d., he will realise that that was done in order to take away the tobacco from the old-age pensioners.

Mr. G. Thomas: I do not apologise for continuing this debate, having sat here from the beginning. This is not a minor part of the Bill. I have listened to fairly long speeches on this important subject from both sides of the Committee.
I made one intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower). Unwisely I allowed some interventions which were meant to be helpful to divert me when I was referring to narrowing the gap. It was, in fact, narrowing the gap that I meant. That was an accurate description. The hon. Member for Barry has performed one of his tricks once again. So often he comes here like a bee flitting from flower to flower, and then he is away. In the

time that he has been here—and I am bound to criticise him in his absence, because I have no opportunity to criticise him in his presence—we have seen that the hon. Member comes into the Chamber, bleats his story and then is away; and inevitably he takes both sides of the argument.

Mr. S. Silverman: My hon. Friend must allow me to defend the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) in his absence against this most unfair attack. I heard every word of that speech, and so far from the hon. Member having taken both sides of the argument, as far as I could make out, in a fairly long speech, he never mentioned the Amendment at all.

Mr. Thomas: I ought to have known that I should receive a very helpful interruption from my hon. Friend.
May I make this comment to the Minister who, I know, is anxious to get on with business? It is not for the Minister to decide when the end of the discussion has been reached.
Having said that, I turn to the Government's proposal for taking away this tobacco voucher. To my mind it is in the typical Tory tradition. Just as they took away orange juice from the children and welfare milk from the nursing mothers in other days, so today they take the smoke away from the old-age pensioner, without giving any significant contribution to enable the old-age pensioner to obtain what is hardly a luxury but almost a necessity in these days. The Conservative Party have resented a great deal of our welfare services, and I believe that this move is but a part of their general approach to the social services. It is in strange contrast to the subsidy which they are giving to landlords.

Mr. Shurmer: Out of the National Insurance Fund.

Mr. Thomas: Out of the National Assistance Board, at least.
This proposition reveals the lack of understanding by hon. Members opposite of the problems of poor people. Indeed, we hardly expect them to understand these problems.

Mr. Shurmer: It is no good the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) looking like that. All this is true.

Mr. Thomas: Who is the person most affected by the Government's proposal? I know that there are two categories of retirement pensioners. There are those in receipt of National Assistance and there are those who live on the basic pension and their savings or receive the basic pension and are maintained by their children. The people who have had to parade their poverty to the National Assistance Board and who have proved that they are in the greatest need are the people to whom the Minister has in any case said that he proposes to give an increase of only 5s. a week in their income. From that 5s. a week he now proposes to take away the equivalent of this 2s. 4d. voucher.
Like my hon. Friends, I do not think that coupons are the answer to the problem of the old folk in this country. I do not like to see an old person having to give up a coupon in a shop in order to obtain an article cheaper than anyone else can obtain it, but I resent the fact that when this coupon has been taken away by the Government he will have to stay outside the shop. He will be unable to go into the shop at all.
The Minister seems to regard this increase in pension as substantial. If ever there were a relative term it is the term "substantial." By what measurement does the Minister call this 5s. increase for people on National Assistance a substantial increase? Is it by the standard of the average earnings in the country? The Conservative Party boasts that the average earnings in this country are £12 a week. The pensioner is in any case well below the standard of the average worker in the country.
It is most unfair to suggest that this increase should be regarded as in any way substantial. Just as the average worker has to pay 2s. a week extra to supply the increase in pensions, so, apparently, the person who is in receipt of the tobacco voucher has to provide the increase in war pensions for those who have placed the nation in their debt by services in another way.
I believe that this proposal is made at the wrong time. Despite all the attempts which may be made to deal with the situation, it is made at a time of rising, not falling, costs against inadequate incomes. In my opinion, it will

cause a great deal of resentment amongst people who had been led by speeches from hon. Members opposite to believe that they were to have a substantial increase in their old-age pensions. At recent by-elections we have heard speeches from the Conservative Party saying, in effect, "Wait until our old-age pensions proposals are brought forward. We shall give substantial increases to the old folk."
Let it be on record that for nearly one million people in this country who are in receipt of National Insurance and a tobacco voucher, there will be an increase of 2s. 8d. a week. Of that the entire House ought to feel ashamed.

Dr. Horace King: I hope that the Minister does not share the view which was expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), who is no longer in the Chamber, that old-age pensioners' associations are in any way party political. Those associations consist not only of Labour old folk, but of many loyal old Tories in the country, many loyal supporters of this Government, misguided though they may be in their political allegiance. When the old-age pensioners express their disgust at the proposals made in the Bill, that is a political act; but it is by no means a party political act and it represents the sincere and bitter disappointment of the pensioners.
I was very glad that the Minister expressed his pleasure and, he said, his feeling of nostalgia at the appearance of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) on the Front Bench. "Nostalgia" was the right word, particularly for us on this side. Not only did it remind us of the days when we were in power, but it reminded many of us of the days when the unjust taxes on tobacco were not as high as they are now.
As many hon. and right hon. Members have reminded the Committee, the tobacco token concession was first introduced when a new and swingeing tax was imposed on tobacco. It was felt right, and I think it was right at the time, that we should spare the old folk, the old smokers, from having to make this extra tax contribution on their tobacco.
6.0 p.m.
It should be said, in view of a remark made by the Minister, that in my many contacts with old folk I have not found many non-smokers who grudge the concession that was made to the smokers, any more than a non-smoker in hospital would grudge the gift of cigarettes to a patient in the next bed to him. I have not found the non-smokers enviously complaining because the old folk who smoke have been getting some of their tobacco more cheaply.
It is worth pointing out, too, that it is remarkable that there has been singularly little abuse of this concession. I said in a previous debate that I was surprised that old folk who did not smoke did not conspire to cheat the Government by getting tokens falsely. The figures which have be quoted from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury show that the percentage increase in old-age pensioners who have the tobacco concession is from 46 to 54 per cent. Those of us who know how every rising generation consists of more women smokers than the previous generation can understand that that rise in the number of old-age pensioners who make use of the tobacco concession is not surprising. The old folk are honest and the old-age pensioners, in their general approach to the problems of the Welfare State, give a tremendous lead and example to the younger folk coming on.
It has been argued, and the whole case for abolition of the token is, that this concession is an unfair one. I am not sure that we should be absolute even about that, because we would merely relieve the old-age pensioner smoker of part of what I believe to be a very unfair indirect tax. It has, however, been pointed out that this concession benefited only a group of old-age pensioners. As the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) pointed out earlier in the debate, many deserving and poor people, including some old folk, have not been eligible for the tobacco concession.
The whole Committee would, I think, agree with the Minister in the general principle that the tobacco token scheme should come off at the earliest possible moment and that the only possible moment that it could come off without

causing hardship would be when a generous addition was being made to the old-age pension. We do not solve a problem of unfair privilege. Aesop's fox without a tail wanted to solve its problem by getting all the other foxes to lose their tails. It is at a time when the Government are making a handsome increase in the old-age pension that we should take off the tobacco concession.
The case from this side of the Committee is that a handsome increase in the old-age pension is not being made and that the real people we are debating about this afternoon are the 1¼ million old-age pensioners whose maximum increase under the Bill is the National Assistance increase of 5s. Even for the old-age pensioner who theoretically is to get a 10s. increase under the Bill, the increase for the smoker is only 7s. 8d. Indeed, the only old-age pensioner who will get the maximum benefit of this new legislation is the non-smoker owner-occupier, because the old-age pensioner who is a non-smoker, who is above the National Assistance Board level and is living in a house that is rented, has probably already lost by way of rent increase most of the benefit that he will get under the Bill.
If it is bad enough for the 10s. smoker who is to get only 7s. 8d. out of the Government's proposals, it is shocking for the poorer pensioners who smoke, those on National Assistance, who stand to get only 2s. 8d. The Amendment seeks to give 2s. 4d. back to just over half of the 1¼ million poorest people in England. It seeks to add to the increase in pension, which we think is not enough, something like half a crown.
A very eloquent appeal has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard), whom many of us had the privilege of accompanying to the Chairman of the National Assistance Board when we have endeavoured from time to time to point out that the Board was not doing the duty for which we set it up years ago and that it lags behind in making provision for the poorest people. I should have thought that the whole Committee would be with us in pressing the Minister to give this extra 2s. 4d.
The real trouble behind this debate, and behind the whole problem of whether the tobacco concession is to be removed now, is the poverty of the poor and the


fact that the standard of living of the English people in general is rising but that the standard of living of those on pensions is by no means rising. Even the figures from the Manchester Guardian, quoted by the Minister in his last intervention, show that the rise in the standard of living of the old-age pensioner in comparison with 1946 is infinitely below the average rise in the standard of living.
I hope that the Minister will still think again about the points we make as the debate continues and that we can persuade him yet to accept the Amendment, or, if he will not accept the Amendment, to be even fairer and to give the extra 2s. 4d. for which we are asking to smokers and to non-smokers.

Mr. Fernyhough: The Minister is anxious to proceed quickly with the Bill and we are all anxious to help him, but the reason that we are taking a long time over the Amendment is the Minister's meanness. I should not be speaking now if the Minister had made the concession for which we are asking. The delay is the Minister's own responsibility. He is refusing to make the reasonable concession which we on this side have advocated and which we have put forward in a non-party manner.
One of the things that have been troubling me for a long time is how the Government bring in Bill after Bill and steamroller them through the House just as though it were a Reichstag. In other words, the arguments or the Amendments put forward by the Opposition have no effect. The Rent Bill went through without a single adjustment, the last National Insurance Bill went through without a single adjustment and this Bill will go through without a single Amendment from the Opposition being properly treated. That is not Parliamentary democracy: it is dictatorship.
If the Minister is being kept longer on the Bill than he intended, it is precisely because he is acting more like a fuehrer than a leader of a Government or of a Parliamentary democracy. [An HON. MEMBER: "A little fuehrer."] A fuehrer nevertheless. Nowadays, whenever we have any major Bill, no serious Amendment from the Opposition is given the proper consideration.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does my hon. Friend not think that he is perhaps a

little unjust to the Minister? One could understand it better if the right hon. Gentleman were the fuehrer, but he is not the fuehrer. He is merely recommending to the House and to the Committee something that he is told to recommend. He is just as much a victim of the fuehrer as the rest of the Committee.

Mr. G. Thomas: He is a commissar.

Mr. Fernyhough: I can only make my guess as to whom my hon. Friend was referring.
I want particularly to reinforce what has been said concerning those who are receiving National Assistance. When my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) made the point that ever since this Government came into power they had been narrowing the gap, he was perfectly right. They have not only narrowed the gap; they have completely abolished it. When the National Assistance Board was first set up, its scales exceeded the scale for sickness and unemployment benefit. We always regarded the people who had to apply for benefit from that source as being the poorest of the poor, those without any resources whatever. We said, therefore, that if they were to maintain even the subsistence level suggested by the Beveridge Report, the scales of National Assistance should be slightly higher than National Insurance benefits.
Ever since the present Government came to power, every change which has been made in the National Assistance and National Insurance rates has narrowed the gap until, under these new proposals, National Assistance scales fall below the general scales of the National Insurance Acts.

Mr. Hale: That is why they sacked George Buchanan.

Mr. Fernyhough: One can only think that this change, which hits harshly those right at the bottom of the social scale, has been brought about because of the changes made by hon. Members opposite in the composition of the National Assistance Board. In other words, it seems to me that we have now on the Assistance Board men without any charity, men without any feeling.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): This Amendment relates only to the Tobacco Duty concession.

Mr. Fernyhough: Yes, but it affects over 1 million people on National Assistance. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] There are supposed to be more than 50 per cent. of the pensioners receiving it, and there are 5 million pensioners. If I assume that half of those who are getting it are on National Assistance, I am not far off when I say that 1 million people are affected by this.
What the Government propose is not to give the single pensioner 10s., but to give him 7s. 8d., not to give a married couple of pensioners who smoke 15s. but to give them 10s. 4d.; under National Assistance, not to give the single person 5s. but to give him 2s. 8d., and to give the married couple on National Assistance not 9s. but 4s. 4d.—4s. 4d. a week to a married couple who have to prove that they have not got any resources, that they are dependent on what they can get from the National Assistance Board. It is two and a half years—almost three years—since the scales were last adjusted, and after three years what we are saying is that those people are entitled to only 4s. 4d. despite all the price increases they have had to face.
The test of how a Government feel towards any section of the community is best judged by what proportion of the national revenue collected by them they devote to that section of the community. We have heard a lot from the other side about how generous the Government have been to the pensioners by contrast with the Labour Government.

Mr. G. Thomas: Only two hon. Members on that side have spoken today.

Mr. Fernyhough: Yes, but we have heard a lot from one or two hon. Members today about how generous the Government have been to the pensioners in comparison with the Labour Government. Let us have a look at the facts. Let us take the question of family allowances, war pensions, non-contributory old-age pensions and—

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid that this Amendment relates only to the Tobacco Duty concession.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. I think every Member of the Committee is grateful for Rulings from the Chair, and we all try to follow them. It is a little difficult to follow this present one. Except for half an hour I have sat here

from 3.30 while we have been discussing this Amendment. There have been two speeches only from the other side. Neither of them mentioned the tobacco Amendment at all. Those speeches were devoted entirely to the comparison between one point of view which my hon. Friend is trying to make now and the other point of view. It is a little difficult to see why they should have been in order and my hon. Friend should be out of order.

The Deputy-Chairman: I can only repeat that this Amendment is related to the Tobacco Duty, as the hon. Member will agree. I cannot deal with speeches I did not hear.

Mr. Fernyhough: It is most unfortunate that when the hon. Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) makes a very bad attack, an unjustified attack, upon my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), an attack which has nothing to do with the Amendment, and I attempt to give the real reply, she, presumably, can get away with it, but I cannot.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member and I, too, have to keep to the rules upon the Amendment as upon any other matter.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I venture respectfully to submit to you, Sir Gordon, this point. In considering the economic implications of the withdrawal of this concession the whole argument put forward by the Government on the financial side is that we have to have regard, in considering all these figures, to the economic state of the country. As I understood my hon. Friend, he was at that very moment about to call attention to the steps which were taken in the matter at a period when the economic situation was certainly presenting problems quite as grave, problems quite as substantial as those which, it is claimed, are now presented to Her Majesty's present advisers.
The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance has constantly drawn comparisons. Indeed. I may say that the only argument of any kind he has put forward, which he nearly always puts forward in the concluding sentences of any of his speeches on the subject, has been that the


Labour Government in 1951 did something or another which, in his view, in quite different circumstances, appears to correspond to something or other that he is doing now. Those of us who may seek to catch your eye, Sir Gordon, later in the debate will be deprived of a major part of our arguments unless we are allowed to refer briefly to the comparative circumstances. I would call your attention to the fact that a great part of the debate has concentrated on the circumstances in which this concession was given, and the reasons for it.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am not quite sure whether the hon. Member is making a point of order or a speech.

Hon. Members: Speech.

Mr. Hale: Just as you like, Sir Gordon, since with your usual courtesy you were permitting me to continue. In fact it was a point of order, and I submit it to you.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am not quite clear as to exactly what point of order the hon. Member is raising.

Mr. Fernyhough: What I would say with deference, Sir Gordon, is that, having sat here from the beginning of the debate, a little harsher judgment is being applied to my speech than has been applied to any previous speech.
I would put this consideration to the right hon. Gentleman who is so proud of these increases. In 1948 the then Government were devoting to tobacco coupons and to other things which benefited pensioners of all kinds, 3·4 per cent. of the total Budget. This Government, who claim to have done so much for those on National Assistance, for the old-age pensioners, the non-contributory old-age pensioners, and the rest, last year were devoting to them 2·4 per cent. of the national revenue. This Government have not given anything. They are making the people who are to pay 2s. a week pay for these increases, and they are also making the old-age pensioners make a contribution by relieving them of the pleasure of buying their tobacco at a cheap rate.
Christmas is coming. I suppose that hon. and right hon. Members opposite will tell their children round the Christmas tree the story of Mr. Scrooge. There are

still many Scrooges living. It is only a Scrooge-like individual, only a mean-fisted individual, who could be a chief in a Ministry and not protest when £37 million was given to Surtax payers and then agree to bring in a Bill which takes 2s. 4d. a week off those on National Assistance.
These are matters on which we show our sense of real values. These issues show where we really stand. The Minister said there was much misgiving about this concession by those who did not enjoy it. I will tell him now that unless he sees fit to change his mind the misgiving which there has been among those who have not had it will be as nothing compared with the misgiving which will be felt among those who have had it and who will have it taken away from them. I hope they will make such a noise about it that the whole of our people will learn of the meanness, the contemptibleness and the injustice of this proposal so that when the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends go to the polls they will go out and never come back.

Mr. S. O. Davies: I cannot apologise for intervening even at this late stage of a long discussion. I have sat through the whole debate on the Amendment, except for a matter of 20 minutes. I do not complain about that in any way, because it has given me the opportunity of watching once again, most critically, the reaction of Government supporters.
There have been two speeches only from hon. Members opposite during the whole of the debate, and neither paid the least attention to the Amendment. By straining the facts and by other means, both the hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) and the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) tried to pay compliments to the Government and create a smoke-screen between themselves and their constituents when they go back to answer for what is being done here this afternoon.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Barry is not now present. In his attempt to justify what the Government are doing he made comparisons between the record of the present Government and that of the Labour Government. Has he forgotten that South Wales was almost ruined by Tory Governments and was only pieced together again by the Labour


Government in 1945? I say to the hon. Member for Barry, as a fellow South-Walian, that he should have some regard for the memories and the sensibilities of other hon. Members who come from that part of the country, and who remember the tragedies of the inter-war years.
The Minister, with his hand on his heart and a great deal of meaningless eloquence, has tried to impress upon people what a generous being he is, but the Tory Party and the Government should be informed that they are not giving a halfpenny away in all the so-called concessions included in the Bill. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) made that abundantly clear. The Government will receive in contributions all that will be spent on the increases. The Minister knows that very well. He knows that he has taken the tobacco coupons away from the pensioners to meet increases in war disability pensions. This is tantamount to perpetrating nothing less than a fraudulent deal on the people. Possibly, hon. Members of my age feel a little more sensitive on the subject than do younger hon. Members.
I must tell the Minister and the hon. Member for Barry that, but for the grace of God and fortuitous circumstances, they might have been making these cheap and misleading statements at my expense today as well as at the expense of the poor people to whom I have referred. These proposals are the quintessence of Tory meanness. Hon. Members opposite have not tried to make any contribution to justify this utterly mean tactic on the part of the Government.
I, like so many Welsh colliers, have smoked for many years and I could not help thinking today of those colliers coming up from the dry, dusty coalmines in many parts of South Wales and immediately lighting up a pipeful of tobacco. They have carried the desire for tobacco and the habit of smoking into their pensionable years. What a mean, dastardly thing it is to attempt to destroy a habit which was part and parcel of their existence in the days when they were making a contribution towards the wellbeing of the country.
It is despicably mean that we in this Committee have to go into one Lobby or the other on this matter of the proper

treatment of these elderly people. It was they, after all, who made life possible for many of us. What a sorry state the country and the House of Commons would be in today were it not for the sacrifices of these people, their will to work and their power to adapt themselves to almost unthinkably bad physical conditions. The proposal in the Bill is an exhibition of classic and memorable meanness on the part of the Tory Government.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: I had not intended to intervene, but I have been stung into doing so by the taunts of the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard) and the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies) to the effect that only two of my hon. Friends have spoken on the Amendment. There is one matter which I should like to mention, to which reference has already been made today by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil and the right hon. Member for Middlesborough, East (Mr. Marquand) and yesterday by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor)
The hon. Member for Mansfield said that there were three possible alternative motives in the mind of the Government for abolishing the tobacco concession. When he came to the last, which he clearly thought was the real reason, that of saving the Treasury £16 million, his voice took on an accusing edge. The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East followed up the point. One would think, to hear hon. Members opposite, that the Government had reduced these pensions instead of raising them to a record level. Since when has it become a crime to save £16 million of public money? We have come a long way from the days of Gladstone, when it was thought creditable for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to save £16 million. In those days it was considered to be the Chancellor's duty to save the taxpayer's money.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. I do not know, Sir Charles, whether you recollect any occasion on which Mr. Gladstone had anything to say about tobacco coupons?

The Chairman: That is not a point of order, and I certainly have no such recollection.

Mr. Fisher: But Mr. Gladstone was on a good point when he said that money should be allowed to fructify in the pockets of the people, and it should not he held as a reproach to my right hon. Friend. We have come a long way from the days of Mr. Snowden, who, though he is now scarcely acknowledged by hon. Members opposite as a Socialist, was certainly the best Chancellor of the Exchequer that they ever produced. The Socialist Party, with its spendthrift and highly inflationary schemes, which would add not less than £1,000 million to the annual budget, at the same time and in the same breath have the gall to talk about curbing inflation—

The Chairman: Order, order. I do not think that the tobacco concession would have that effect.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Fisher: I merely wanted to say that they should stop this double-talk. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
I come now, in response to your advice, Sir Charles, to the reasons for my right hon. Friend's abolition of the tobacco concession. There are several reasons, notably the unfairness as between one pensioner and another, which my right hon. Friend elaborated. But I hope, as a former Treasury Minister, that he is in no way ashamed that he has saved the Exchequer £16 million in the process.

Mr. Shurmer: Why not save it on the Surtax payers?

Mr. Fisher: We were told by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) that pensioners do not want concessions. I accept that. The fact remains, however, that we are giving to the pensioners, themselves the greatest sufferers from inflation, a better deal—[HON. MEMBERS: "2s. 8d. a week."]—than they have ever had before, and a far, far better deal than they ever had from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite—

Mr. Shurmer: A cigar would cost more than 2s. 8d.

Mr. Fisher: —and the less hypocritical nonsense we hear from the Socialist Party on this subject, the better.

Mr. S. Silverman: I begin by congratulating the hon. Gentleman the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) on at least having

the courage to break the silence on the benches opposite which has been "audible" throughout this debate. I wish I could have congratulated the hon. Gentleman on being unique. If he had said anything about the Tobacco Duty or the withdrawal of the concession, he would have been unique among his hon. and almost his right hon Friends. Now we have the spectacle of having had not only two back benchers opposite speaking in this debate, but three, and from no one of the three have we heard a word in defence of the proposal which the Opposition have been attacking throughout this debate. In fact, all three fought shy of telling the Committee which way they would vote.

Mr. Fisher: I should have thought that it was clear from my remarks that I intend to vote against the Amendment.

Mr. Silverman: At any rate, that is now clear. I will say this for the hon. Gentleman, that his taunt was justified, because I would have known that even if he had not got up. I would like him to bear it in mind when he is reviewing the circumstances of the debate, particularly having regard to the question of who is making party politics out of what.
So many people, and, I fear, some of my hon. Friends, have been guilty of what I hope I may say without offence is almost humbug. What nonsense it is to say that we can possibly deal with these questions without party politics entering into them. Wait until the Division lists are published, and then we will know whether this is or is not a party question. If there is one hon. Gentleman opposite who comes into the Division Lobby with us when the Amendment is put to the vote, I shall revise what I have said on this point. One will do, one righteous man coming into the Division Lobby with us against the main proposal, even if he does not mean it, even if he only comes into the Division Lobby to prove that this is not a party question.
I had occasion to intervene once or twice in the speeches of my hon. Friends who protested against injustices that they had done to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. I know that they appreciate that I did so in all kindness, and I think both of them accepted the point when I put it to them. Now I must say another thing to my hon. Friend


the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) who, I am sorry to see, is not here. I think he was unjust to Mr. Scrooge.
To accuse the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance of behaving like Mr. Scrooge was unjust. I wish the Minister would behave like Mr. Scrooge. As I remember the story, Mr. Scrooge relented, he accepted the "amendment". It is really a shocking injustice to the memory of a great literary character to compare his immense generosity, his warmth of heart, with the cold meanness of the Minister, who insists on taking £16½ million out of the pockets of the poorest of the poor, without advancing a single argument which, in equity, justifies him in doing it.
It is all very well for the hon. Member for Surbiton to call in aid Mr. Gladstone. In Mr. Gladstone's day there were no old-age pensioners—

Mr. Roderic Bowen: It was Mr. Gladstone's party who first gave pensions.

Mr. Silverman: Mr. Gladstone was dead long before that happened, but if Mr. Gladstone had had the advantage which the Liberal Party had in 1908, of a rising Labour Party at their rear, pressing them on, even Mr. Gladstone might have been in favour of old-age pensions. Poverty became a question of politics with the advent of the Labour Party, and when there is no poverty left there will be no need for the Labour Party. That is my answer to the point about party politics.
Now let us look at another point. According to the Government, it is intended to bring up the income of old-age pensioners until it is in better relation with the increased level of prices and the cost of living. The hon. Member for Surbiton who had the courage—I will not say the audacity—to defend this, said that the Government had done it so handsomely as to create a record, that nobody had ever been so generous as the right hon. Gentleman. Let us see how generous he is to the 1 million, or 1¼ million, people affected by this proposal.
Nobody gets any advantage out of this except the Treasury. Let that be clear. The right hon. Gentleman had a lot to say about equality. This is the Tories'

version of equality. Their idea of equality is that if one section of the population enjoys an advantage which other section do not enjoy, the way to create equality is not to give an equivalent concession to those who have not got it but to take it away from those who have. That is Tory equality—levelling down. Because some people do not smoke, they say, "Let us take this little extra concession from those who get the advantage," irrespective of what is the effect upon those from whom they are taking it away.
It is important to bear in mind that not a single category mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman will benefit from the Government's proposal. The right hon. Gentleman has had a lot to say about the pensions of disabled ex-Service men. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would give me his attention. He is at the moment consulting his hon. Friend. If they want to consider whether they can change their minds, perhaps the Committee would adjourn to give them that opportunity; but while the debate is continuing we are entitled to be heard.
The right hon. Gentleman had a great deal to say about the classes of pensioners and other disabled persons who have not had the advantage which the old-age pensioners have had in the remission of the extra Tobacco Duty. Not a single one of them will benefit from the Government's proposal. It would be a serious libel upon a very large class of our fellow citizens if one were to suppose that, without deriving any benefit themselves, they would derive some personal comfort because a group of people who had previously enjoyed a concession were now losing it.
Nobody will benefit by this proposal except the Treasury. It is done to save money. One of my hon. Friends made a most effective, persuasive and sincere speech a little while ago. He said, and I agree with him, that there are very many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite and many persons in the country, not members of the Labour Party, who are not stony-hearted and mean but ready to do anything in their power to improve the condition of the old-age pensioners—if only it does not cost any- body anything. If only one could leave the old people with their tobacco concession without losing the £16½ million, those people would be as kind as my hon.


Friend, and would not interfere with the old people.
It is the money that matters. That is the difference between the two sides—not whether we want to relieve suffering but what we are prepared to do in order to relieve suffering, what we are prepared to do without. The Treasury could do without its £16½ million. It could itself bear the cost of increasing the pensions of disabled ex-Servicemen without calling upon the old-age pensioner to give up his pipe of "baccy". It is not necessary for these old people to lose their tobacco.
What does it mean to these old people to lose their tobacco? My hon. Friends have said that, in the case of those on National Assistance as well, it means reducing the 10s. benefit to 2s. 8d. It is not only that. For old people, smoking is not a luxury. Earlier in life one can try to persuade people either not to contract the tobacco habit or to give it up. I was expecting the right hon. Gentleman, in his elaborate defence of these proposals, to say that what the Government really desired was to save the old-age pensioner from lung cancer by cutting off his smoking. The right hon. Gentleman did not go quite that far. I thought the intervention of the Financial Secretary, who seemed to assume that all old-age pensioners would live for thirty years, must have been based on some such assumption, for the only possible purpose of his intervention could have been to make some such implication as that.
In the case of these old people the habit has become a confirmed one. For many it has become almost the only comfort that they have. I noticed that on the day of the Second Reading the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) came into the House. No one ever sees the right hon. Gentleman outside this Chamber without a cigar, from Havana, a foot long, in his mouth. One of the ironies of this debate is that the right hon. Gentleman, who has committed himself to smoking in that way, should come to the House to vote against the tobacco concession to old-age pensioners.
I merely use that point to illustrate that to deprive a man at a certain time of lift of the capacity to indulge the smoking habit is to inflict real misery and torture on him. Very often such people would rather give up their cup of tea than their

pipe of tobacco. Also, in these days, when food is so dear, tobacco smoking often serves to still hunger. The proposal is not to deprive these people of some luxury that they can well do without. They are being deprived of one of the prime basic necessities of their lives.
Why should we do it? Why should the right hon. Gentleman do it? Did he want to do it, or was it forced upon him, as I half suggested a little while ago, by considerations for which he is only indirectly responsible—financial considerations? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) said previously, the Government would have no objection to the pension being raised provided that the Treasury did not have to contribute a single farthing. The Government's attitude was, he said, that if money had to be found, it should be found elsewhere, and if it meant finding it from the poorest of the poor, out of an old man's handful of tobacco or hand-rolled cigarette, the money should be obtained that way.
6.45 p.m.
Then the right hon. Gentleman comes to the Committee and sings paeans of lyrical praise about the generosity of the Government. How generous are they being? They are not contributing a single farthing to this proposal. So far from contributing anything, they are making a profit out of it. That is what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Surbiton is praising them for. That is the evidence of the generosity which he compares with the meanness of the Labour Party.

Mr. Fisher: It is still the highest level of pension that we have ever had.

Mr. Silverman: I do not want to cover the whole ground again. We have been on this long enough. I dare say that the Minister is almost tired of it. I should not blame him if he were. What I am pointing out is that, whatever the advantages of the Bill, exaggerate them or inflate them as one wishes, when one has done one's best with them one has to remember that the Government are not contributing a single farthing. That is what the hon. Gentleman calls generosity. I wish the Government would stop being generous and would try a little justice instead; but if they once started on that, how long would they stop there?

Mr. Shurmer: I make no apology for stating, as I have often stated in the House of Commons, that throughout the whole of my public life, which covers some thirty-seven years, I have lived in one of the poorest parts of Birmingham. A public man doing that is bound to know the homes and lives of the people.
There is not the slightest doubt that there are sections of old-age pensioners who, whatever we say about the increase or the pension that they have had, are not living in anything like the manner in which they should live. They are living far below the subsistence level. It is absolutely impossible for the hon. Lady the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who represents a district in Birmingham where better-class old-age pensioners live, not to know that in our great towns and cities the old-age pensioners of today, who were the workmen earning the small wages of years gone by and unable to save anything, are hardly existing.
When the trumpets blared forth and the Press blazoned forth that there was to be an increase in old-age pensions of 10s. a week for a single person and 15s. a week for a married couple, I began to wonder. I went further into the matter. Some of the public have not yet realised the bluff which has been played upon them. We see that 5s. is to be taken from those on National Assistance, from the poorer old-age pensioners, and now the tobacco coupon is to be taken from them. There is not the slightest doubt that the Government have nothing to shout about, because they are robbing these poor old-age pensioners of their tobacco coupons.
Let us be honest and admit that there are a large number of old-age pensioners who also to have other income. This decision may not hit them very hard. In many instances, too, they are not applying for their tobacco coupons. These people will receive the full amount of the pension increase. I am thinking, however, of those old-age pensioners who are merely existing on the little which they receive today. They will receive an increase of 2s. 8d., which is far less than they need and far less than they ought to have.
For the Government to rob them of this tobacco coupon is a mean and despicable trick, and I hope that it will

react strongly upon them. I feel confident that old-age pensioners' associations throughout the country will speak in no uncertain manner about this despicable action by the Government. If the Government were paying for the pension increase I should not mind it so much, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) said, although the Government have given an increase to the war pensioners, the money for the increase has been taken from the poor old-age pensioners through the withdrawal of the 2s. 4d. tobacco coupon. Again, the workers—indeed, all of us—are to pay 2s. extra in our National Insurance contributions.
No hon. Member opposite can deny that when there has been anything to give away, the Government have given it to the better-class people, from the Surtax payer down to the better-off old-age pensioner. They have taken away from the poor old-age pensioner. All the time the Government are attacking the poorest people. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) said, they hate and despise the work that is done by the social services in the country, and if they dared—but they dare not—they would wipe it away tomorrow. Instead, they are nibbling and nibbling at the social services all the time.
The day of retribution will come, and the sooner it comes the better. The sooner we clear this Government out and give a chance to a Government which will give human treatment to the poor old people of the country—those who in the past have helped to build it—the better it will be.

Mr. John Rankin: The Minister's attitude when he replied earlier in the debate was somewhat unusual, because in his introductory statement he informed the House that we were indulging in funeral celebrations. En other words, he had given no consideration to the arguments which had been advanced and he had reached his decision. He rose to tell us straight away that we were at a funeral celebration. Then he proceeded to deal with one or two of the arguments, but that part of his speech was of no account because he had come to a finding.
Both before the Minister's intervention and since, I have heard a succession of remarkable speeches in support of the Amendment, and I suggest to the Minister that he is perhaps celebrating the funeral a little too early. No doubt there will be a more appropriate occasion for that in a year, eighteen months, or perhaps two years. In any event, since the right hon. Gentleman spoke a number of very cogent speeches have been made, and I should like to know whether we are to have a further reply to the points raised.
There has been a good deal of comparison between what this Government have done and what the Labour Government did when they were in power. I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to one aspect which has, so far, not been mentioned. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) pointed out that in 1947–48, the first financial year when he was at the Exchequer, he met a bill of £2,876,000. That was the cost of this concession in the first year. It is worth noting that by 1950 the cost of the tobacco concession had grown from £2,876,000 to over £11 million. That is an astonishing increase. But the Labour Government, faced with conditions immensely more difficult than those under which this Government are operating, paid the bill.
We have had an assurance from the Leader of the House that things have never been better.

Mr. G. Thomas: "Never had it so good."

Mr. Rankin: Despite this, the Government are to perform one of the meanest tricks of all time on those who are least able to stand up to them.

Mr. S. Silverman: Double the cost of living in twenty-five years.

Mr. Rankin: It is the misery which they will double.
Since the present Government came into power in 1951 the increase in the cost of the tobacco concession has risen from a little more than £12 million to the present cost of £16½ million. In other words, it has pretty well ironed itself out. The relatively small increase in cost is in no way comparable with the tremendous increase which was borne by the Labour Government.
The meanness of the Minister in this matter comes home to me, in particular, because not far from where I live in Glasgow there is a bowling green, and the corporation open the pavilion to the old men of the area. Even at this time of the year anyone passing will see them sitting there, all smoking their pipes. It is a consolation to them which those of us in the House cannot appreciate.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland was at the Exchequer he said that the purpose of his concession was to try to give these old men, who had served the nation in their day and generation, a chance to get two ounces of tobacco a week. Anyone who smokes a pipe knows that two ounces of tobacco a week is not a large amount. At that time, the price of tobacco was about 3s. 4d. an ounce, and the 2s. 4d. voucher was a significant help. For a person to buy two ounces of tobacco a week nowadays it would cost him almost the whole of the 10s. increase which the Minister is giving him.
7.0 p.m.
The Minister is, in effect, saying "You are only to get this benefit if you stop smoking". That is a cruel thing to do; it is quite wrong. With the price of tobacco at the level which it has now reached, to withdraw the 2s. 4d., with the knowledge that it takes almost the whole of the 10s. to buy those two ounces of tobacco, is to me a crime almost unforgivable. I hope that, even at the last moment, after hearing those of us who have spoken since he made his contribution, the Minister will now repent. The lamps of mercy are still burning for him.

Mr. G. Thomas: But they are flickering.

Mr. Rankin: It may be that a consultation is proceeding on the Front Bench at the moment, and I do not want to interrupt it. If it is to have a favourable outcome, I am perfectly willing to sit down now and to listen to the Minister saying that he will retain this concession. It is one of the things for which every old-age pensioner who smokes will never forgive him, if he does not follow the advice which has been offered from this side of the Committee.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided; Ayes 253, Noes 213.

Division No. 7.]
AYES
[7.2 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Gammans, Lady
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Aitken, W. T.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
McAdden, S. J.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Gibson-Watt, D.
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Alport, C. J. M.
Glover, D.
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Glyn, Col. Richard H.
McKibbin, Alan


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Godber, J. B.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Armstrong, C. W.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.


Ashton, H.
Goodhart, Philip
McLean, Neil (Inverness)


Atkins, H. E.
Gower, H. R.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Graham, Sir Fergus
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Baldwin, A. E.
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Balniel, Lord
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Barlow, Sir John
Green, A.
Maddan, Martin


Barter, John
Gresham Cooke, R.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Grimond, J.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Gurden, Harold
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marshall, Douglas


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Mathew, R.


Bidgood, J. C.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maude, Angus


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Mawby, R. L.


Bishop, F. P.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Medlicott, Sir Frank


Black, C. W.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Boothby, Sir Robert
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Moore, Sir Thomas


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Nairn, D. L. S.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Neave, Airey


Braine, B. R.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nicholls, Harmar


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hobson, John(Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Oakshott, H. D.


Bryan, P.
Holt, A. F.
O' Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hornby, R. P.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.


Burden, F. F. A.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bucher, Sir Herbert
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Osborne, C.


Campbell, Sir David
Hurd, A. R.
Page, R. G.


Carr, Robert
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh, W.)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Channon, Sir Henry
Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)
Partridge, E.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hyde, Montgomery
Peyton, J. W. W.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Cole, Norman
Iremonger, T. L.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Cooke, Robert
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pott, H. P.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Powell, J. Enoch


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cunningham, Knox
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rawlinson, Peter


Currie, G. B. H.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Redmayne, M.


Dance, J. C. G.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Davidson, Viscountess
Kaberry, D.
Renton, D. L. M.


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Deedes, W. F.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kershaw, J. A.
Robson Brown, Sir William


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Kimball, M.
Roper, Sir Harold


Doughty, C. J. A.
Kirk, P. M
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Drayson, G. B.
Lagden, G. W.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Sharples, R. C.


Duncan, Sir James
Lambton, Viscount
Shepherd, William


Duthie, W. S.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. (Kelvingrove)
Leather, E. H. C.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


Elliott, R. W.(N'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Leavey, J. A.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Leburn, W. G.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Errington, Sir Eric
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Erroll, F. J.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Finlay, Graeme
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Fisher, Nigel
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Storey, S.


Forrest, G.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Fort, R.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Freeth, Denzil
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)




Teeling, W.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)
Vickers, Miss Joan
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Woollam, John Victor


Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Wall, Major Patrick



Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Mr. Barber and Mr. Hughes-Young.


Turner, H. F. L.
Webbe, Sir H.





NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Herbison, Miss M.
Pearson, A.


Albu, A. H.
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Peart, T. F.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Holman, P.
Pentland, N.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Anderson, Frank
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Popplewell, E.


Awbery, S. S.
Hoy, J. H.
Prentice, R. E.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hubbard, T. F.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Balfour, A.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hunter, A. E.
Probert, A. R.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Proctor, W. T.


Benson, G.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Pryde, D. J.


Beswick, Frank
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Blackburn, F.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Randall, H. E.


Blenkinsop, A.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Rankin, John


Blyton, W. R.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Redhead, E. C.


Boardman, H.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Reeves, J.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Reid, William


Bowles, F. G.
Joner, David (The Hartlepools)
Rhodes, H.


Boyd, T. C.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brockway, A. F.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Burke, W. A.
Kenyon, C.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Ross, William


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
King, Dr. H. M.
Royle, C.


Callaghan, L. J.
Lawson, G. M.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Ledger, R. J.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Champion, A. J.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Chapman, W. D.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Clunie, J.
Lewis, Arthur
Skeffington, A. M.


Coldrick, W.
Lindgren, G. S.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Lipton, Marcus
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Snow, J. W.


Corbe[...], Mrs. Freda
MacColl, J. E.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Cove, W. G.
MacDermot, Niall
Steele, T.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
McGhee, H. G.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Cronin, J. D.
McInnes, J.
Stonehouse, John


Crossman, R. H. S.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stones, W. (Consett)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
McLeavy, Frank
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Sylvester, G. O.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Mahon, Simon
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Deer, G.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Delargy, H. J.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Diamond, John
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Dodds, N. N.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Thornton, E.


Dye, S.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Timmons, J.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mason, Roy
Tomney, F.


Edelman, M.
Mellish, R. J.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Mikardo, Ian
Watkins, T. E.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mitchison, G. R.
Weitzman, D.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Monslow, W.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Fernyhough, E.
Moody, A. S.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Fienburgh, W.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Finch, H. J.
Mort, D. L.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Fletcher, Eric
Moss, R.
Wigg, George


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Moyle, A.
Wilkins, W. A.


Gibson, C. W.
Mulley, F. W.
Willey, Frederick


Gooch, E. G.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Williams, David (Neath)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Grey, C. F.
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oram, A. E.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Orbach, M.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Hale, Leslie
Oswald, T.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Owen, W. J.
Winterbottom, Richard


Hamilton, W. W.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hannan, W.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Woof, R. E.


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Hastings, S.
Pargiter, G. A.
Zilliacus, K.


Hayman, F. H.
Parker, J.



Healey, Denis
Parkin, B. T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Paton, John
Mr. Holmes and Mr. Short.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Crossman: I want to raise the problem of the non-contributory pensioner. If I understand the position correctly, under the second part of the Clause there shall be paid an increase of only 2s. 4d. in the non-contributory pension. I want to ask the Minister one or two questions about the position of the non-contributory pensioners.
Hon. Members on this side of the Committee believe that there are about 250,000 or 260,000 of them, and we believe—we are not sure—that of those about 47 per cent. are receiving supplementation through the National Assistance Board. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee would probably agree that some of the most incessant complaints that we have received have been from non-contributory pensioners who say, "Nothing ever comes to us." Those who have contributed received an increase this year, but after the original 26s. conceded in 1946—and here hon. Members on this side must also admit negligence—there has been no increase, for the non-contributory pensioners until this minor concession of 2s. 4d.
7.15 p.m.
This is a group of people who should be spoken for and whose claims should be listened to because, in the light of this Bill, it will be very difficult to justify the argument that the non-contributory pensioner is entitled to nothing because he has contributed so little. I would draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the fact that one effect of the Bill is to make absolute nonsense of the principle of contribution. As a result of the Bill, the situation will be created in which, in respect of the ten-year people coming in next year, I do not dare to calculate what proportion of the pensions which they receive will be actuarily contributed by them—I suppose it will be a penny in the shilling or less—whereas the young man will be contributing far more than he can actuarily demand.
At present the position is that 2s. 7d. more per week is being contributed by the young man and his employer on his behalf than is actually demanded in order to achieve his pension. Therefore, we achieve the astonishing situation that for the young man far more is demanded than he gets whereas, from the old, an almost negligible fraction will be demanded in order to make him entitled to the pension.
We have now reached the point at which I must ask whether we are any longer justified in excluding the non-contributory pensioner. Can the Minister say, with justification, that because a person was too old and could not come in he should once again be denied any increase in his pension, while somebody else in a precisely similar position is entitled to an increase of 10s.? If we are going to make nonsense of the insurance principle it would be far simpler to scrap the whole thing and have non-contributory pensions paid for directly out of taxation. We should then get rid of all the stamps and the cost of administration and we should pay everybody the same amount. There would be an enormous saving in costs.
The line which the Government are adopting is one of the reasons why we put down an Amendment, which has not been called, which would increase the 2s. 4d. to 24s. It was a reductio ad absurdum of what had been happening, in order to show that every non-contributory pensioner should be entitled to the increase which those who are in the scheme are receiving. We put down that Amendment and drove our argument to the absurd conclusion in order to indicate what is basically wrong with the Bill.
I know that there will be objections. One is that we need not worry about non-contributory pensioners because they get the same, if they are poor enough, by way of National Assistance. That is one of the most brutal and inhuman arguments that I know of. The argument that people, if poor enough to be subjected to a means test, are no worse off and need therefore have no rise in their pension is an argument which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will forbear to use this evening. About 47 per cent. will not gain financially if they are brought into the scheme because they are already receiving National Assistance. What they will gain is status, the feeling that they are receiving a pension by right and not as a result of having to subject themselves to investigation month by month in order to prove their absence of means.
Another argument is that non-contributory pensioners are not receiving Assistance either because they have not asked for it or because they are too prosperous to get it. I do not deny that


there are some non-contributory pensioners about whom this might be said. I should like to know the numbers, however, and one of the things that I hope to get out of the Parliamentary Secretary is a promise to publish a great deal more information about these people, because they include people in varying walks of life who are outside the scheme for varying reasons. They have not all been left out of the scheme for the same reason. We should like to know more, because these people have not received justice. They did not even get it from the Labour Government, and we should like to make sure that they receive it under the next Labour Government.
Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will provide me with a number of detailed figures about non-contributory pensioners, giving us their exact numbers; where they are, and a proportionate break-down of the figures. We will then make better use of those figures for producing a workable scheme to give those people justice than the Parliamentary Secretary and her colleague have been doing this evening. What they have done for these people is precisely nothing. All they have done is not actually to deprive them of their tobacco coupons if they possess them, which is not a very princely concession for the non-contributory pensioners.
I think it would be a terrible thing had this issue not been raised; if we on this side of the Committee had not asked the Minister, "Why do you deny these people any increase at all? How can you justify a pension of 26s. in 1957 if it was justifiable in 1946? What is the reason for keeping this pension down? Why are these people kept in a special compartment?" I know that when they write to me I can never explain the reason. I know that these people have an increasing and bitter sense of grievance at being left out because of a sheer accident over which they had no control. It is in that spirit that I commend the rejection of this Clause.

Mr. R. E. Prentice: I wish to support the point of view advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman). He and I put down an Amendment which was rather unorthodox and which has been ruled out of order. But this Motion provides

us with an opportunity to raise the matter. I agree that the insurance principle left after this Bill has come into effect is shocking, even though the Joint Parliamentary Secretary proposes to defend the present position on the grounds of that principle. The Committee should recognise that here we are dealing with a small and declining number of people, and as insurance has now been compulsory for nearly ten years we shall do no real damage to the principle if we bring these people in line with what other elderly people are to have.
My hon. Friend asked the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to give him some figures. I have looked up a few figures and they may help to illustrate the case which he presented. That does not absolve the Joint Parliamentary Secretary from providing figures, because my figures are some months out of date and she can, no doubt, produce figures which are up to date. My figures are taken from the Department's Report for last year. From that Report I see that we are dealing with 257,000 people and that, during 1956, 29,000 died, that is, over 10 per cent. So we are dealing with a class of pensioner which, apparently, is declining in numbers by about 10 per cent. every year.
All except a few blind pensioners are over 70 years of age, and the figures show about half as being over 80 years of age, so that we are dealing with very elderly people. Three-quarters of them are women, the majority of whom are living on their own, being either single or widowed pensioners. Therefore, we are dealing with a class of people whom we should do everything possible to help.
The Report shows that nearly 60 per cent.—that figure is a little higher than the one quoted by my hon. Friend—are having their pensions supplemented by National Assistance, and that figure was an increased percentage on the figure for the previous year. I assume, therefore, that the up-to-date figures will show a further increase. The majority of these people are having to go on National Assistance anyway, but we are still imposing on the non-contributory pensioner this undignified business of having to parade his means before the National Assistance Board in order to claim any pension at all.
Again quoting from the Report, we were, in 1956, paying 1,200 pensions at


the rate of 2s. a week and 1,600 pensions at the rate of 4s. a week, and so it goes on up the scale; just a very mall number being paid these insignificant pensions. I think that the whole process is becoming unnecessary. It is increasingly undignified for this small minority of very old people who are left. I consider that the Government should take this opportunity or, at any rate, an early opportunity, to put the matter right.

Mr. T. Brown: I wish to support what has been said by my hon. Friends. As is usual when the Government attempt to help the old-age pensioners, they have left a few by the roadside. Nothing for these people that ought to be done is being done. If we examine the statistical digest of the Department, we find that in March, 1956, there were 275,000 non-contributory pensioners in receipt of their pensions. The pensions varied, as my hon. Friend has said, from 1s. to 10s. By December of last year, the number had fallen to 257,000, which sustains the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice). According to the latest available figures, in March of this year the number had fallen to 249,000, and on 31st August to 240,000. The number of these people diminishes, but whether there is one or a million, we should see to it that they are not neglected.
It will not cost very much. The non-contributory pensioners are the eldest of the elderly, and in many cases they are also the poorest of the poor. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary may deny this, but I do not wish to become involved in an argument about people not going to the National Assistance Board. I agree that that is the way in which they can prove their need. But why should they be compelled to live in poverty or tell every detail about themselves to an area officer of the National Assistance Board? Surely it is possible for the Department to examine this problem again and endeavour to include these people in the scheme. We are not asking for anything unreasonable. All we desire is that these unfortunate people, who could not contribute because they were too old when the scheme came into operation, be included so that they may he helped and know that they have not been forgotten.

7.30 p.m.

Miss Pitt: The non-contributory pensioner comes into our discussion tonight, because in Clause 3 we propose to take power to make good to them the value of the tobacco token. That has led to this discussion.
The hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) asked me to give him up-to-date figures. The hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) has done a fair amount of research on those figures, but perhaps I might give the hon. Gentleman the up-to-date figures. I am not saying that the hon. Gentleman's figures were incorrect but am telling him that I have the latest information.
The total number of non-contributory pensioners at present is 240,000. Of that number those on National Assistance are 145,000. I have been asked by both hon. Members whether it is not possible to include the non-contributory pensioner in the full scheme; in other words, to give them the benefit of the increase which is being given to the retirement pensioner under the National Insurance Scheme. I surely do not have to remind hon. Gentlemen opposite of the history of the non-contributory pension. It was maintained by their party, and special provision was included in the 1946 Act to take care of the people who had not previously contributed to any scheme but who might have been disposed to think that they had certain non-contributory rights.
It was therefore continued only for a transitional period of 15 years. It expires in 1961, except for a small number of blind people. It is, therefore, as the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) said, a pension affecting a diminishing number of people.
For that reason, neither the Government of hon. Gentlemen opposite nor successive Governments have done anything about this pension. The hon. Member for Coventry, East asked me not to suggest in my reply that if these people needed further help they should go for National Assistance. Surely he realises that all of them—everybody who now enjoys a non-contributory pension—have it administered through the National Assistance Board, exactly the same body they would go to if they needed supplementary pension.
I would add, since the hon. Member for Ince referred to this class of pensioner as the "poorest of the poor", that that is not quite correct. One of the reasons why the non-contributory pensions were continued by hon. Members opposite when they were in power was not only that certain people might have been thought to have expectations but because the disregards for the non-contributory pension were much more generous than the disregards for National Assistance. It is a fact—I hope that this answers the full point—that a married man and his wife can have as much as £1,730, and if they have no other means they can still receive the pension at the maximum rate. They are not qualified for any supplementation.
In view of the fact that this is a transitional pension to help those people who were precluded from being brought into insurance by the 1946 Act, that it ends in 1961, that it is diminishing in numbers, and that those people in receipt of the non-contributory pension can in addition apply for National Assistance, there is no warrant for endeavouring to do anything for them at the expense of the contributory pensions.

Mr. T. Brown: The hon. Lady denied that these were the poorest of the poor. Will she agree that, out of the 240,000 in receipt of the non-contributory pension, 100,000 are receiving National Assistance?

Miss Pitt: 145,000.

Dame Irene Ward: I am bitterly disappointed at the Government's decision. I fully realise the arguments, which have been very well put indeed, and I am not disputing any of them, but my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary did argue that the non-contributory pension was only for a period and that this was a diminishing number of people. Surely that does not affect the human issues and the human problems involved. I do not mind in the very slightest degree whether these are transitional pensions or whether this is a diminishing section of the community. Indeed, I think they strengthen the case for something to be done. I am profoundly disturbed at the decision of the Government.
In one of my localities—I think it is Whitley Bay—I have above the average

of retired people. A large number of the people are on this non-contributory pension scheme. I feel that I would not be adequately representing them, or the people who know how they live and how brave they have been under very adverse circumstances, if I did not advocate their cause.
My hon. Friend has put forward all the arguments why the Government have decided against this, but I notice that, like every other Minister from the Prime Minister downwards, she avoided the pledge which the Prime Minister gave that something would be done for those living on small fixed incomes. These people are living on small fixed incomes. I have always argued how difficult it is to do something for them. I agree that that is almost an insoluble problem. It is difficult to find time in the House for legislation, and I do not think this is a matter which I can satisfactorily raise on the Adjournment. I always seem to get ruled out of order.
Here is a specific group. I am not impressed with the fact that the disregards are higher. If I had my way the disregard would be higher for all National Assistance. I am not at all impressed to hear that people have savings. I thought the whole basis of the Conservative philosophy was to encourage people to have savings, and I am only too delighted that the people in this group have savings, although not very large. The fact is that these people have contributed and only get very small pensions, but after all, as the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) said, the late entrants have not contributed anything like the capital value of the sum which will give them the increase of 10s. Yet among the late entrants there must be hundreds of thousands of people who have a great deal more than £1,000 saved. There is no logical argument there at all.
The Prime Minister gave a specific pledge at Brighton that people living on small fixed incomes were to have their needs attended to. It is very difficult to find ways and means of covering all the groups, but here is a specific group, and if that pledge meant anything at all this group ought to be covered. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will convey to her right hon. Friend, who will convey it to the Prime Minister, who will convey it to the Cabinet, exactly


what I think about it. I have supported the introduction of the Bill and have made speeches in support of the Government, but I am not making a speech in support of the Government on this Clause. I have no intention of voting for the Clause.

Mr. George Wigg: I should not have spoken had I not been deeply moved by the gallantry and warmth of the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). She has made an unanswerable case against the Parliamentary Secretary who replied for the Government and who does not see this matter in human terms. She has become departmentalised and she ought to join the Civil Service.
One can imagine this situation going on until there is only one non-contributory pensioner left. The hon. Lady would still stand at that Dispatch Box and make the same speech, saying that this was a scheme introduced by the Labour Party and that it had to be carried out. Almost at the end of her speech she discovered that this scheme was administered by the National Assistance Board. That is nothing to be triumphant about. The hon. Lady should look beyond the statistics and the White Papers and consider this important matter in the human terms in which my hon. Friends and the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth have already spoken.
I do not need to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to convey anything to her right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions, because he is present. If he cannot make the concession now, he should undertake to go back to his senior colleagues and ask that, at some time in the future, when the number of these pensioners runs down to below 200,000, he may wind up the scheme. The point must be reached at some time at which the administrative cost is greater than the cost of making the concession. If the Government will not respond to the pleas made from all sides of the Committee in human terms, will they do it on the ground of efficiency and competence, and the saving of pounds, shillings and pence?

Miss Margaret Herbison: I want to take up one or two points which have been made by the Parliamentary Secretary and by the hon.

Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). I do not think the hon. Member for Tynemouth should be at all surprised about the promise of the Prime Minister at Brighton and the lack of action by him and his Ministers since their return from Brighton.
From the Parliamentary Secretary we had the same old excuse trotted out. This was something that a Labour Government had introduced; in succeeding Measures the Labour Government had done nothing further for these people. The implied praise of the Labour Government time and time again by Ministers on the Front Bench opposite is something which amazes me, but, of course, it is not meant to be praise. It is an excuse trotted out time and again when the Government are determined to do nothing for a certain section of our people. The Parliamentary Secretary said that disregards were generous. She gave us the example of a man and his wife who could have more than £1,000 of a disregard, but those are not the people for whom we are making a plea tonight.

Mr. Winterbottom: Some of them have not even 1,000 pence.

Miss Herbison: We are making a plea for the 145,000 who are on National Assistance and some others who are not on National Assistance, but who have 26s. a week and find it very hard to live on that amount. The Parliamentary Secretary has given us no proper reason tonight why in this Measure some consideration has not been given to those people. Does the hon. Lady think that the value of 26s. is the same as it was in 1946? To have the same purchasing value, it would have to be raised to 42s. 4d. according to the figure given by the Minister. It is no use the hon. Member for Tynemouth asking the Parliamentary Secretary to convey this plea to the Minister and to senior Ministers, because our Amendment has been on the Notice Paper since Friday last. In the light of that, if the Minister had seen justice in our Amendment he could have gone to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and tried to win them over to doing justice to these people.
It seems, however, that he agrees with his Parliamentary Secretary, not that something cannot be done for these


people, but that nothing should be done for them. That is what I object to so much—the callousness of the reply by the Parliamentary Secretary. I ask the Minister, can he not at this stage give some hope to these 145,000 or to the 240,000 in this category?

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Winterbottom: I do not want to speak at great length on this matter, but I wish to supplement the appeal made by the hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward). I think that by her latest speech she redeemed her earlier speech this afternoon with which I strongly disagreed.
I wish to call attention to one fact about these non-contributory pensioners. The statistics used by the Parliamentary Secretary may not be accurate. Many of these old people in receipt of non-contributory pensions have no other income than the 26s. a week, no income from investments and nothing from National Assistance. Although it may be unrecorded in the statistics, some of these people may be living with their children. In many cases they may be feeling most embarrassed because they know that the amount entailed in keeping them alive, feeding, housing and clothing them, is far in excess of the 26s. they are receiving by way of non-contributory pensions. Because the statistics are hopelessly wrong and because those people are in receipt of nothing else, either from National Assistance or from investments, I support the appeal of the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth.
The Parliamentary Secretary should not approach this matter from the point of view of a Civil Service brief, but from the point of view of real, humane considerations of a practical measure which ought to be taken into consideration by any Government. I am not throwing stones at the Government, but saying that a Government that does not take notice of a situation like this is almost as the salt of the earth which has lost its savour and is fit only
to be cast out and to be trodden under foot of men.

Mr. Crossman: Are we to have no word from the Minister on this matter? He said we all want to help each other. When is he going to help the Opposition a little? We are not asking for any solid,

firm concession. We know the Government cannot make that, but we are asking for something less stony than the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary that she thinks nothing can be done.
Cannot the Minister tell us that as a humane person he is prepared to look at this problem? How is he going to get us through this difficulty if he is not going to do anything about it? We make a reasonable case, but all we get in reply is a stony, flat turn-down. Discussion of the following Clauses will take longer if we do not get something better than that.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will certainly respond, although I hope that the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Cross-man) did not mean by his concluding remarks that if he does not get his own way on a particular Amendment the desire of hon. Members on both sides is likely to be frustrated.
Of course I gave very careful thought to this matter before the Bill was introduced; there is evidence of that thought in the terms of the Bill itself. I considered this position carefully. That is why there is the provision under which all the pensioners of this category are to get the increase of 2s. 4d., whether they be smokers or not and whether they come to draw this benefit before or after the Bill.
There is clear evidence—as lawyers would say, "on the face of the document"—that this provision was carefully gone into before the Bill was introduced, but I am bound to say that I came to the conclusion, as my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said, that so far as this Bill was concerned there was really no case for any increase in this benefit other than that to which I have referred on the withdrawal of the tobacco tokens.
I do not rely—apart from everything else it always seems to raise the blood pressure of hon. Gentlemen opposite—solely on the fact that they did exactly in 1951 what we are proposing to do now and left the benefit as it was. It is a fact which should make them seriously ponder that, at the time when their right hon. Friends thought it right to raise a large number of retirement pensions, they left this benefit as it was. Of course, the reasons which actuated my predecessor in 1952 and 1954 are perfectly easy to


understand. This is not one of the benefits that moved, in the new National Insurance Scheme, in tune with the rise in contributions on three successive occasions, and is now being raised on a fourth. This, as my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said, was an old right deliberately preserved so that expectations should not be defeated. There are other examples throughout the system—the 10s. widow is a case in point—where successive Governments have not thought it right, for that reason and several others, to increase the benefit when they are increasing the new benefits of the National Insurance Scheme.
This is, on the face of it, a wholly transitional pension. There will, in fact, be no new ones awarded under the terms of the 1946 Act to anyone who attains the age of 70 after 1961. That is the thought which appears to have affected all my precedessors since the original Act was introduced.
There is also a practical point which may perhaps appeal to the Committee. These pensions are paid by the National Assistance Board. There is no question, therefore, if they have to be supplemented of anyone having to get that supplementation by going to the National Assistance Board. They are there already.

Mr. Winterbottom: How about the others?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps I may he allowed to finish my sentence. So far as they are concerned they first of all are drawing this pension and, if their needs are such by assistance standards, they can supplement it from the National Assistance Board. I understand that in practice in these cases the money is paid on the same order—they simply get one amount, the pension and supplement. These people will benefit from the increase in National Assistance scales which we shall he discussing, I hope, in a few days' time.
The hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) says very fairly: "How about the others?" The others, we must assume, are not within the National Assistance scales agreed, and, indeed, there are some who qualify for this pension owing to the higher standard of property which those eligible can hold compared with National Assistance and

who are not within the National Assistance scales. Some may be brought within the National Assistance scales by an increase in these scales which, if Parliament approves, will operate at the end of January. The others are people above the subsistence level ex hypothesi.
I have very great sympathy with all persons on small fixed incomes for whom my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) is so doughty and determined a champion. But I do not think the right way to tackle that problem, which is one of the major problems of the time, is to provide an improvement in this obsolescent benefit in aid of that section, and that section only, of its recipients who are not receiving supplementation through National Assistance. I do not think that is a right or particularly helpful way of doing it.
Therefore, I came to the conclusion, as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has so very clearly stated, because this is a Bill practically confined, as the Committee knows, to increases in National Insurance and Industrial Injuries contributions and benefits, that this was not the right vehicle for anything to be done for that category of person.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry, East asked whether I would give some hope—I think that was his phrase—in connection with this matter. The Government, as the Prime Minister has said, and my hon. Friend has quoted him, are very much concerned about the general category of the small fixed income groups, and it would be legitimate, in looking at that category, to look at the comparatively small group affected by this obsolescent benefit and, in the process, to look at this and other aspects of the matter.
I must in frankness to the Committee say that I doubt very much whether the considered view of successive Governments over ten years is likely to suffer any change in the process of that consideration for the reasons I have given and the reasons which have actuated my predecessors on this matter. In so far as we look at the whole question of these groups, this group is far from being excluded.

Mr. Ede: I should like to express my sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman. It is quite clear that


in this matter he has explored every avenue and he finds that each of them is a cul-de-sac. I know how disappointed he must feel, and he must have an additional disappointment when he thinks that although under some new town planning scheme it may be possible for him to look at a few more avenues, it is quite certain that they also will be cul-de-sacs. It is a poor end to a gentleman who used to show such ingenuity when he sat on this side of the Committee in vaulting over the wall at the end of a cul-de-sac.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(CREDITED CONTRIBUTIONS FOR SELF-EMPLOYED PERSONS.)

Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (2) of section five of the National Insurance Act, 1946, self-employed persons excepted from liability to pay contributions for any period under regulations made under subsection (1) of the said section, when they are not in receipt (or are deemed not to be in receipt) of an income exceeding one hundred and fifty-six pounds a year, shall be credited with contributions for the said periods for the purpose of all the benefits under the National Insurance Acts which apply to self-employed persons.—[Mr. Bowen.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Bowen: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This Clause is directed at dealing with one of the difficulties experienced by self-employed persons in the lower or, indeed, the lowest income group. They are a limited and a quite clearly defined and ascertainable group of people.
I think that it would be true to say that the self-employed persons have benefited generally by the operation of the 1946 Act. It would be also true to say, again speaking quite generally, that they have been dealt with very fairly under the provisions of that Act, particularly in regard to Exchequer supplementations. There is undoubtedly a large number of examples in the last ten years where the position of the self-employed person is unsatisfactory, and it is with one of those matters that this new Clause deals this evening.
It deals with that class of person who has an income which does not exceed £156 a year and who, therefore, is entitled

to claim exemption from stamping his cards, and who, in fact, is encouraged to claim exemption from stamping his cards. Quite apart from persons who have an income which does not exceed £156 a year, all those self-employed persons whose incomes, for the sake of argument, ranges between £3 and £8 or £9 a week are already making very great sacrifices by paying at present 9s. 3d. a week and, ultimately, 11s. 6d. a week in order to keep themselves under the insurance umbrella.
8.0 p.m.
I want to deal with those persons whose incomes do not exceed £156 a year. As I understand the position—and I speak subject to correction in this respect—the employed person who is in receipt of sickness benefit is credited with a contribution during the period in which he is in receipt of that benefit. It is true that the self-employed person is in precisely the same position; he is credited with a contribution during the time that he is in receipt of sickness benefit. I make no complaint about that. The employed person who is in receipt of unemployment benefit is also credited with a contribution for each week in which he is in receipt of that unemployment benefit. Certainly I do not quarrel with that.
When we consider the position of the man who has claimed exemption from stamping his card because his income does not exceed £156, however, we find that it is different. He is sorely tempted to claim exemption because of the burden of having to pay this very substantial amount out of his income. Indeed, he is encouraged to claim exemption. If he does so, however, he may well jeopardise his claim to a pension or his widow's claim to a pension. In addition, he may well jeopardise his entitlement to sickness benefit.
I do not want to go into the details, but he may find that he is not entitled to sickness benefit at all. At the best, he will be in a position where he is entitled to sickness benefit at the top rate at the beginning but then is entitled to it at a lower rate and finally is removed from entitlement altogether. Thus, by claiming exemption the self-employed person penalises himself and jeopardises his insurance position.
I should like to explain my experience to the Committee in this matter, and I


hope the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us whether it is in accordance with her experience. Self-employed persons who could claim exemption often submit themselves to great personal hardship in order to remain in insurance because they very naturally and properly fear the consequences of putting themselves outside entitlement to insurance benefits, both for pensions and for sickness. Many of them make sacrifices in their difficult circumstances to continue to pay the insurance contribution rather than claim exemption.
The position is aggravated by the fact that many of these people are entitled to and are in receipt of National Assistance. If they are in receipt of National Assistance the amount which they receive in National Assistance is not affected by the fact that they have stamped their cards. In other words, if they decide to safeguard their position in relation to pensions and sickness benefit and to continue to stamp their cards, that is not taken into account by the National Assistance Board in deciding what to pay them; they are in exactly the same position as if they had not stamped their cards.
The only possible qualification is that if they are self-employed persons in only part-time work, then 10s. is not taken into account by the National Assistance Board. Subject to that qualification, if it is a qualification, they are not helped in any way by the National Assistance Board to keep within insurance entitlement.
All the new Clause asks is that these self-employed persons with £3 or less a week total income should be treated, from the point of view of being credited with contributions, in the same way in which unemployed persons are treated; they should be credited with their contributions for the period of their entitlement to claim exemption. In that way a large number of people would no longer have to turn to the National Assistance Board for assistance.
I feel that it is very much in the interests not only of self-employed persons in that category but also of the country to keep them within the entitlement for insurance benefits. For those reasons, I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically at the new Clause. It may well be that it is rather too wide in its scope and needs to be qualified in some

way, but I am sure that the whole Committee will agree that in this respect the problem of self-employed persons needs to be looked into again.

Mr. Arthur Holt: I beg formally to second the Motion.

Miss Pitt: The new Clause would give all benefits, except unemployment benefit, to self-employed people with small incomes for no contribution. That is the first point I want to make.
Regulations made under the main Act allow self-employed or the non-employed to claim small income exception if their incomes do not exceed £156 a year, as the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) rightly said, but credits are not awarded. The principle behind this is that credits are given only in circumstances where contributions would be payable but for the contingencies—for example, sickness or unemployment—against which the contributor insures himself.
At the moment, about 20,000 self-employed persons are excepted from paying contributions. In addition, about 180,000 non-employed persons also have small income exception. No provision is made in the new Clause to deal with the non-employed, but I think it would be difficult to resist the claims of these people if it were decided to grant the proposals of the new Clause to the self-employed.
The difficulty about the proposal is, very simply, that it is not insurance. It would give right to benefits for which no contributions had been paid, and I think it would be unfair to the other contributors to the National Insurance Scheme, and to taxpayers, who would have to pay for benefits which would go to these people who, as self-employed, had claimed exemption.
In support of the view which I have expressed, may I add that the National Insurance Advisory Committee examined this question and reported on it in 1956. The question was the subject of a Private Member's Bill in 1954, if I remember correctly, hence the reference to the National Insurance Advisory Committee. In its Report in 1956 the Committee made it quite clear that it thought it was not practicable to give credits either to self-employed or non-employed persons


who came within the excepted group because it would be unfair to present contributors.
I feel that the new Clause must be rejected. May I, however, answer one or two points which the hon. and learned Member made in his speech? He admitted that the self-employed person was dealt with very fairly under the 1948 Act, but then said, if I understood him correctly, that those who came within the low income group were encouraged to claim exemption from paying contributions and from stamping their cards. I should not have thought that this was correct, because it is certainly not in the interests of these people in the low income groups to claim exemption if they can afford to pay. I should not think that my Department, any officer in it or anybody connected with social welfare would encourage them to discontinue their contributions.

Mr. Bowen: The hon. Lady refers to whether people can afford to pay. We are dealing with people who have £3 a week or less and who are being asked to pay 9s. 3d. a week out of that £3. I should have thought it was quite clear that all these people find it extremely difficult to pay.

Miss Pitt: I am not minimising the fact that they may find it difficult to pay the contribution.
May I add one other point? They can have an income slightly above £156, because it can be £3 plus what they would have to pay for a stamp on their card. That would raise it to rather more than £3.
I now come back to the point I was endeavouring to make. It is not in the best interests of those people that they should be encouraged to claim exemption, because they would then deny themselves benefits later on and have to have recourse to National Assistance should they need help during sickness or when they reach retirement age.
The hon. and learned Member for Cardigan also made the point that all others with from £3 up to £7 or £8 are struggling to keep up their payments. When he says that, I assume that he means all other self-employed people with fairly low incomes. Does it not seem unfair that those people who are struggling to keep up their payments

should be required, if this Clause were accepted, to make a contribution to the provision for people who had claimed exemption?
The hon. and learned Member quoted his own experience and said that many of those people may have to make a real sacrifice to keep themselves in insurance. He asked whether my experience matched his own. That is not my experience. I quite accept the fact that he has met with these cases. The cases I have met concern people who have claimed exemption because their income was less than £156 and then, when they reach retiring age, would very much like to reverse the option they made because they realise the considerable disadvantage at which they are compared with other retirement pensioners. I hope I have dealt with all the points raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
May I now come to the reason why the Minister and myself feel it necessary to reject this Clause. It is a serious breach of the contributory principle. It is unfair to people in Class 1 with small incomes and people in Class 2 with incomes slightly over £156 who are themselves making contributions not without sacrifices. It may lead to a similar demand for those in Class 3. I feel that for these reasons I must advise the Committee tot to accept this particular Clause.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause.—(INCREASED RATES OF RETIREMENT PENSIONS TO APPLY TO EXISTING BENEFICIARIES.)

(1) As from the appointed day the increased rates of retirement pensions set out in Part I of the Fourth Schedule to this Act shall apply to existing beneficiaries as they apply to persons who have satisfied the relevant contribution conditions under the National Insurance Act, 1946, and the power to make regulations under subsection (3) of section sixty-five of that Act shall be exercised accordingly.

(2) In this section the words "existing beneficiaries" have the same meaning as in the said section sixty-five.—[Mr. W. R. Williams.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. W. R. Williams: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I am sorry that the Motion is couched in very cold legal terms, but I confess that I have found difficulty in finding a suitable procedural vehicle which would


enable me to bring to the notice of the Minister and the Commitee a category of retirement pensioners who seem to be getting a raw deal in the context of the present conditions in the National Insurance Scheme. I refer to those pensioners who are drawing modified pensions, that is, those people who receive less than their full pension rates because of their late entry into the scheme due in this case to the fact that they were in excepted occupation.
8.15 p.m.
Quite a large number of these people were employed in the Civil Service, and I remember well that when I was in the Post Office a number of post office people, minor manipulative grades in particular, were among those people. Their pensions were not very high and, therefore, the Government decided to give them opportunities to become what they termed voluntary contributors under the National Health Insurance Scheme.
The first opportunity to become a contributor under the scheme was given in 1926 and a further opportunity was given in 1930. As far as my recollection goes, the only benefits to which these people were entitled under the voluntary contributors scheme were pension benefits. I am subject to correction, but I think they were not beneficiaries in any other way except under a retirement pension scheme when they reached the requisite age. Under the voluntary contributors' scheme they were called upon to pay the employers' contribution as well as their own, for which they received no extra credit, but the pension was modified according to the age at which they entered the scheme.
That means that these men and women could have been paying as voluntary contributors for fifteen years and, in some cases, for as long as eighteen years. At the end, the contributor and his wife would receive a joint pension which was lower than the joint pension given to ordinary retiring pensioners under the ordinary scheme. I hope that I make myself clear to the Committee, but perhaps I shall make myself clearer if I quote two examples. The first example is one which my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) gave me. He is not here and, therefore, is not in a position to give the example himself.
A postman retired in 1945 at the age of 65, with twenty-five years' established service. He became a voluntary contributor under the option given to him in 1930. On his retirement he and his wife received 53s. 6d. instead of the standard 65s. I understand from the statement made by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, on Second Reading, that these people will be entitled to proportionate increases under the Bill. I am assuming that that is correct.
I now come to the second example, which concerns a postman. This is a case of which I have personal knowledge. The postman was a voluntary contributor for eighteen years. The joint pension that he and his wife received was 60s. instead of the standard 65s. I have no reason to doubt this example, because I was a voluntary contributor myself, but I have forgotten most of the conditions. One just pays these things and hopes for the best at the end. This man assures me that he paid the full 52 weekly contributions for eighteen years right up to his sixty-fifth birthday, in 1948. He paid his own contribution and the employer's contribution, and at the end of it all he was not entitled to the standard rate of retirement pension.
These men write to us and say, quite rightly, that under the present National Insurance Scheme there are thousands of persons with no more than four years' insurance contributions prior to 1948 who will he getting full benefit. They also point out that as many as 450,000 persons, and more, will come into full pension next July after paying ten years' insurance contributions. The men and women who write to us have paid dual contributions, some for as long as eighteen years, some for fifteen years—and, I dare say, some for less—and they cannot see any reason at all why they should be treated more unjustly, or less reasonably, than those other categories who came in five years ago and become entitled to full benefit, and those who, after ten years, will, in July, also become entitled to full benefit. They feel that here there is a real injustice, that they have had a raw deal, and that, at some time or another, someone must try to remedy this situation.
I do not ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to commit himself tonight. I do not suppose for a moment that he would


be able at once to decide the exact lines that should be taken, but this new Clause is the only way in which I could bring the matter to the notice of the Minister and of the Committee. I should like the hon. Gentleman, however, to ask his right hon. Friend to look at this again—for this reason. No more people will enter this category under the 1948 scheme, and no one reaching pension age after 1953 was, in fact, subject to the modified pension rule. I assume, therefore, that the relative cost would be negligible and, after a few years, would not be a recurring charge.
As I have said, I do not expect the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to answer in the affirmative tonight, but I should like him, with his right hon. Friend, to consider the arguments I have put forward, the sense of injustice felt by these people, and the fact that on this side we share the view that they have had a raw deal. I would add that it will not suit my convenience, nor do I think that it will suit the convenience of the Committee, if the hon. Gentleman or anyone else gets up and says that we did not do something in 1951.
All this talk of obsolescence leaves me stone cold. To these people, nothing that affects them is obsolescent, whether or not it may be obsolescent in an academic sense. To them, it means the difference between getting about 65s., and the 80s. that they should be getting under this Bill. I appeal to the Ministry to give serious consideration to this question. If I cannot have an assurance of something affirmative now, I hope that, possibly in another place, the Government will move an Amendment to make this provision possible.

Mr. Harry Randall: I beg to second the Motion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams) need not offer an apology to the Committee for not being able to put over his case with clarity and with persuasiveness. I think that he did it very well indeed, if I may say so, and as there seems little for me to add, perhaps I may be allowed to underline one or two points.
My hon. Friend demonstated that the Bill gives to certain categories of people only a proportionate increase. That is the complaint of those receiving what is known as the modified pension. My hon.

Friend and I believe that the time has come when we should look very carefully at the modified pension and, when we are considering these increases, whether the time has not come to make a full increase to those modified pensioners.
Under the earlier contributory pension Acts, certain trades, occupations and professions were excepted. Those in them were not allowed to come into the compulsory insurance scheme. That was no fault of their own, but because they happened to be in a particular occupation or profession. In that category were quite a large number of civil servants, many of them in the manipulative grades. They were prevented from coming into the compulsory contributory National Insurance Scheme.
As time went on they began to appreciate the benefits of the pension scheme and wanted to come in, and there began the pressure to see whether it was not possible to introduce legislation whereby they could become voluntary contributors. In due course, that legislation came before this House and, as a result, quite a number of those in excepted occupations came in voluntarily and were prepared to pay not only their own contribution, but the employer's contribution as well. That was a fairly large contribution.
When the 1948 Act came in, the other Acts were absorbed but, as I understand, the legislation did not make it possible for these voluntary contributors to have benefit in full. They were to have only a proportionate benefit. This has gone on now for some time, and in view of the rising cost of living it is bearing very heavily on the modified pensioners, and in correspondence I have had quite recently these people have pointed out the injustice.
First, they say that if an individual was in the compulsory scheme five years before the 1948 Act came in he immediately became entitled to full pension, whereas some of these modified pensioners might well have been making a double payment for about fifteen or eighteen years. I understand that under the 1948 Act some of the other contributors are able to get a full pension after being five years in the scheme.
We all know, of course, that next July, for those coming newly into the 1948


scheme the ten years are up and they will be given the full pension. In the light of the facts which have been placed before the Committee, it seems to me that there is a very strong case for considering helping those who receive modified pensions. I certainly believe that there is a strong case for saying that these pensioners should receive a full increase instead of a proportionate increase. If the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is unable to accept the new Clause, we hope that at least he can give an assurance to the Committee that this matter will be examined, in the light of the facts placed before us tonight, with a view to something being done for these pensioners.

8.30 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Richard Wood): I should like to begin by offering my sympathy to the hon. Member for Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams) in his difficulty in drafting. I have certainly found from bitter experience that something which starts out as one thing in one's brain turns out to be something very different on the Notice Paper. I should like to endorse what the hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Randall) said about the clarity with which the hon. Member for Openshaw dealt with this matter. That clarity was admirably followed by the hon. Member for Gateshead, West. If the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) thinks that any injustice has been done, I should be very grateful if he would let me have the cases. I will certainly look closely at them.
I understand that the effect of the new Clause would be to give a standard rate of retirement pension to the existing beneficiaries at July, 1948. Those existing beneficiaries are those who qualified for pension under the system before 1948. As hon. Members have pointed out, those existing beneficiaries are the ones who are receiving these modified pensions. The aim of the new Clause is to abolish the system of modified pensions which is paid to all those who entered the contributory pensions scheme at the age of 45 or more from excepted employment.
As the hon. Member for Openshaw said, those excepted employments included the Post Office, the Civil Service, local Government, the railways, and so

on. Those employments were excepted because they carried pension rights which were at least as favourable as those under the then national scheme.
Under the contributory pensions Acts, those who had entered late from excepted employment did not receive the 10s. pension. They received a reduced pension which depended on two things, first, the age at which they had entered into insurance and, secondly, the number of years that remained for contributions to be paid for pension. Here, I must watch myself very carefully or I shall run into trouble with the hon. Member for Openshaw. When the Labour Government increased the 10s. pension to 26s., those with modified pensions under the contributory pensions Acts had their pensions increased to a proportion of 26s. A similar principle has been followed whenever the main rate of retirement pension has been increased.
I will certainly see—and no doubt he will do it without my seeing—that my right hon. Friend reads the words of the hon. Member for Openshaw and the hon. Member for Gateshead, West. But I should not be honest with the Committee if I held out any hope at this point that this difficult matter could be reconsidered so long after the new scheme came into operation.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Is there any valid argument at all to defeat my argument, other than the suggestion that because we on this side of the Committee did not do it in 1950 or 1951 it is not right and proper to do it now? It does not seem to me that that sort of argument can hold water. I should like the hon. Gentleman to offer me an argument of substance to show why what I have urged today should not be carried out.

Mr. Wood: The hon. Member has not yet allowed me to finish my speech, and I have not yet given him the arguments which lead us to the conclusion that we cannot do what he asks. If I may finish my speech, I think I shall have given the hon. Gentleman, whether or not he agrees with it, the argument which weighs with us in the decision that we shall have to maintain.
The proposed new Clause, about which the hon. Gentleman was commendably modest, does not do one thing and does another. What it proposes is to bring


these modified pensions up to the standard rate, even though the reason for the modification of the pensions was a deficient contribution record, which would have earned only a reduced pension under the new scheme that operates at present.
Under the Contributory Pensions Acts, the pensions of those who entered insurance as voluntary contributors depended, rather naturally, on the yearly average of contributions paid. We feel that it would be wrong, and a contradiction of the insurance principle, that those who contributed only intermittently should receive the full pension in the same way as those who contributed more regularly.
Secondly, what the proposed Clause does not do is to embrace all modified pensions which are paid to contributors under the old scheme who had been in excepted employment. In 1948, there were transitional provisions which provided that those who would have had modified pensions under the old scheme, who reached pension age between 1948 and 1953, received modified pensions on what can only be described as an escalator Clause up to the top limit of the standard rate. Those who receive the standard rate were those who reached pension age from July, 1953, onwards. As the hon. Member probably realises, under this proposed Clause these people would not have their pensions increased.
The hon. Gentleman interrupted me to ask what reasons mainly move us in having to reject this proposed Clause. It is not only the reason that all Governments since this question arose, when they have increased retirement pensions, have only increased these modified pensions in proportion, although that argument would weigh a little with all of us, because all Governments of different parties have given this matter very close consideration. The reason they have decided that it would be impossible to do so was perhaps because it would be unfair to many others with a deficient contribution record who, Parliament has rightly decided in the past, should not qualify for full rate of pension. That is mainly why I shall have to advise the Committee to reject this proposed Clause.

Mr. Marquand: The hon. Gentleman has given some cogent reasons for not doing what is proposed in the Clause, namely, to give the full rate of pension to modified pensioners and other classes

who do not get the full rate. He has not answered the suggestion that perhaps on this occasion, in view of the situation as we now know it—the rise in prices, the removal of the tobacco concession, and so on—they might be entitled to the full increase of 10s. on their modified pension, however arising.
I wish that the hon. Gentleman would address himself to that aspect of the subject. I can understand why he feels he cannot go as far as my hon. Friend proposes, but can he not at least undertake to consider again whether these people should not also have a 10s. increase in view of the circumstances which have given rise to the increase of 10s. a week in the standard pension?

Mr. David Jones: I listened carefully to the reply of the Minister, but he did not convince me that there was any valid reason why this proposed Clause should not be accepted. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams) is not wedded to its wording. What he wants is the principle. In view of the fact that on 5th July, 1958, we shall be conceding full pensions to people who only came into insurance for the first time upon 5th July, 1948, with ten years' contributions, it seems to me unreasonable to continue with these partial pensions.
The fact that it was decided in 1946 and 1948 was understandable. We were then moving into a period when we did not know exactly how it would work out. We have now had about ten years' experience, and it seems to me that it ought to be possible to meet the case of those people who entered the voluntary pensions scheme as soon as they were allowed to do so. People in the industry in which I was employed were in precisely the same position, and they entered immediately they were permitted to do so.
It is true, as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary says, that the pension was determined over a period of years and that the contributions were measured in that way. But surely we are now in a new position. People who have been in the scheme for ten years will draw the full pension, whereas people who have been paying a bigger total contribution, paying the contribution of both the employer and the employee for nearly twice as long—eighteen and nineteen years in some cases—are to be denied an equivalent pension.
Surely a person who had never previously been in insurance and has paid only the contributor's share for ten years is not entitled to a bigger pension than a man who entered at the first opportunity open to him and has paid the share of the contributor and the employer for a much longer period.
The words in the proposed Clause are immaterial. Are the Government prepared to accept the principle and say that they will have another look at the matter, that they believe that an injustice is being done to these people, and that they will bring in a form of words of their own at a later stage?

Mr. Marquand: I am sorry that there has been no response from the Government Front Bench—

Mr. Wood: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I was a little slow in rising, but I had intended to reply.
There is nothing that I can add on the main question, but I should like briefly to reply to the right hon. Gentleman and his hon Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr D. Jones). The right hon. Gentleman's argument would be effective on the occasion of any pension increase, because presumably any pension increase which has ever taken place has been to compensate for the decreased purchasing power of the existing pension. I cannot

see that his argument that in this case the whole increase should be made available to the modified pensioners is any stronger than it could have been on any other occasion.

The hon. Member for The Hartlepools spoke about late-aged entrants who entered the scheme in 1948. I am glad that. Parliament at that time was able to give such an opportunity to these people. However, it is also true to say that the people who will shortly begin to receive their pensions have been paying contributions at a very much higher rate than the men and women at whose benefit the Clause is directed. I cannot add anything there.

Mr. Winterbottom: Have not these people, who have been paying the contributions of the contributor and the employer, been paying during the period when they have been contributing more than the people who will shortly be receiving full pensions?

Mr. W. R. Williams: Might I draw the attention of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the fact that I referred to a case where a man had paid 52 contributions a year for eighteen years? If there is anything more regular and fuller than that, I should like to know what it is.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 204, Noes 238.

Division No. 8.]
AYES
[8.45 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Albu, A. H.
Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Grimond, J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hale, Leslie


Awbery, S. S.
Cronin, J. D.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Crossman, R. H. S.
Hamilton, W. W.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hannan, W.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)


Benson, G.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hastings, S.


Beswick, Frank
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hayman, F. H.


Blackburn, F.
Deer, G.
Healey, Denis


Blyton, W. R.
Delargy, H. J.
Herbison, Miss M.


Boardman, H.
Diamond, John
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Dodds, N. N.
Holman, P.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Dye, S.
Holmes, Horace


Boyd, T. C.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Edelman, M.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)


Brockway, A. F.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Hoy, J. H.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hubbard, T. F.


Burke, W. A.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Fernyhough, E.
Hunter, A. E.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Fienburgh, W.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Finch, H. J.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)


Callaghan, L. J.
Fletcher, Eric
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Champion, A. J.
Gibson, C. W.
Jeger, George (Goole)


Chapman, W. D.
Gooch, E. G.
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Clunie, J.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Coldrick, W.
Grey, C. F.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)




Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Oliver, G. H.
Snow, J. W.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Oram, A. E.
Steele, T.


Kenyon, C.
Orbach, M.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Oswald, T.
Stonehouse, John


King, Dr. H. M.
Owen, W. J.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Lawson, G. M.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Ledger, R. J.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Sylvester, G. O.


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Pargiter, G. A.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Parker, J.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Lindgren, G. S.
Paton, John
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Lipton, Marcus
Peart, T. F.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Pentland, N.
Thornton, E.


MacColl, J. E.
Popplewell, E.
Timmons, J.


MacDermot, Niall
Prentice, R. E.
Tomney, F.


McGhee, H. G.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Viant, S. P.


McInnes, J.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Wade, D. W.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Probert, A. R.
Watkins, T. E.


McLeavy, Frank
Proctor, W. T.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Pryde, D. J.
Wheeldon, W. E.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Mahon, Simon
Randall, H. E.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Mainwaring, W. H.
Rankin, John
Wilkins, W. A.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Redhead, E. C.
Willey, Frederick


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Reeves, J.
Williams, David (Neath)


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Reid, William
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Rhodes, H.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Mason, Roy
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Mellish, R. J.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Mitchison, G. R.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Winterbottom, Richard


Monslow, W.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Moody, A. S.
Ross, William
Woof, R. E.


Morris, Peroy (Swansea, W.)
Royle, C.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Mort, D. L.
Short, E. W.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Moss, R.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Zilliacus, K.


Moyle, A.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)



Mulley, F. W.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Skeffington, A. M.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. Et. (Nantwich)


Aitken, W. T.
Cole, Norman
Green, A.


Alport, C. J. M.
Cooke, Robert
Gresham Cooke, R.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.


Armstrong, C. W.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Gurden, Harold


Ashton, H.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Atkins, H. E.
Cunningham, Knox
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Currie, G. B. H.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Baldwin, A. E.
Dance, J. C. G.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)


Balniel, Lord
Davidson, Viscountess
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Barber, Anthony
Deedes, W. F.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Barlow, Sir John
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Barter, John
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
du Cann, E. D. L.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Duncan, Sir James
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Duthie, W. S.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. (Kelvingrove)
Hirst, Geoffrey


Bidgood, J. C.
Elliott,R. W.(N'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Hobson, John(Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Errington, Sir Eric
Hornby, R. P.


Bishop, F. P.
Farey-Jones. F. W.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Black, C. W.
Fell, A.
Horobin, Sir Ian


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Fisher, Nigel
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Forrest, G.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Fort, R.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.


Braine, B. R.
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Hurd, A. R.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Freeth, Denzil
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Gammans, Lady
Hutchison,SirIanClark (E'b'gh, W.)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Hyde, Montgomery


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Gibson-Watt, D.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry


Burden, F. F. A.
Glover, D.
Iremonger, T. L.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Godber, J. B.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Campbell, Sir David
Goodhart, Philip
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)


Carr, Robert
Gower, H. R.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Channon, Sir Henry
Graham, Sir Fergus
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)







Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Marshall, Douglas
Roper, Sir Harold


Kaberry, D.
Mathew, R.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Maude, Angus
Russell, R. S.


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Mawby, R. L.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Kershaw, J. A.
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Shepherd, William


Kimball, M.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Kirk, P. M.
Moore, Sir Thomas
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Lagden, G. W.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


Lambert, Hon. G.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Lambton, Viscount
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Nairn, D. L. S.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Heave, Airey
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Leather, E. H. C.
Nicholls, Harmar
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Leavey, J. A.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Storey, S.


Leburn, W. G.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Oakshott, H. D.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Teeling, W.


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Llewellyn, D. T.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Thomas. P. J. M. (Conway)


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Osborne, C.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Page, R. G.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Partridge, E.
Turner, H. F. L.


McAdden, S. J.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Vickers, Miss Joan


McKibbin, Alan
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Wall, Major Patrick


McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Pott, H. P.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Powell, J. Enoch
Webbe, Sir H.


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Rawlinson, Peter
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Redmayne, M.
Wood, Hon. R.


Maddan, Martin
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Woollam, John Victor


Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Renton, D. L. M.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)



Markham, Major Sir Frank
Robson Brown, Sir William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Bryan and Mr. Finlay.

First Schedule.—(TABLE TO BE SUBSTITUTED IN PART I OF SECOND SCHEDULE TO INDUSTRIAL INJURIES ACT.)

Mr. Marquand: I beg to move, in page 6, line 11, to leave out "8d." and to insert "7d.".

The Temporary Chairman: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we took all the Amendments to the Schedule together.

Mr. Marquand: I agree, Mr. Hynd. They all apply to the same subject, namely, the extent to which employees' contributions are proposed to be raised by the Bill in regard to the Industrial Injuries Scheme.
We had a long discussion—for an hour or so—on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," and I feel that as the Committee has already had this long discussion on the matter I need only move the Amendment. I hope that we can thereby, quite quickly, come to a decision upon it so that whichever way the decision goes it will be unnecessary to have separate Divisions on the other Amendments.
We listened attentively to what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary had to say about this matter. We fully recognise the principles upon which the Industrial Injuries Fund is established. Because the State subvents the Fund to a reasonable proportion we recognise that the contributions made both by employers and employees ought to be sufficient to pay the benefits not only immediately but over a period of years. But we were not completely satisfied with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's argument that the large increases now proposed—from 5d. to 8d., and so on—are really necessary. They still seem to us to be rather too large, and we are not convinced that it is necessary at this time to go so far in building up the resources of the Fund.
When we compare the contributions now asked for with those which were asked for in 1946, we see that they represent an increase of 100 per cent., whereas the basic benefit is increased by only 80 per cent. over the 1946 level. It is a good increase, and we are not complaining about it, but we do not see why the contributions should be increased


quite so much. I need say no more. I expressed my views in the earlier discussion, as did many other hon. Members. We now want to register our feeling about the matter in the Division Lobbies.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Wood: The four Amendments which we are now discussing, if taken with those which are shortly to be moved to increase the benefits, illustrate some of the financial difficulties into which we shall all be led if we entrust our affairs to another Socialist Administration.
The right hon. Gentleman has been commendably brief, and I do not want to retrace all the ground which was covered yesterday in the debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," but I repeat that in his recent Report the Government Actuary has pointed out that the new rates of contribution—which the Amendments suggest should be lowered—represent those amounts which would be sufficient to ensure the solvency of the Fund. They are rates designed not only to cover the deficiency pointed out in 1954, but also to cover the new liabilities which have been placed upon the Fund by the Acts passed since 1954. They are also intended to pay for the new benefits. This Amendment and the following Amendments suggest against the whole weight of the Government Actuary's Report that, in fact, more benefits could be obtained for less.
Sometimes this Socialist theory seems to dazzle the electorate, but here the theory of trying to get more benefits for less comes most uncomfortably against the economic facts of life. I hope that hon. Members will accept that it is not possible to buy, as is intended in this

series of Amendments, one-third better benefits for one-sixth less cost. On the specific proposals to reduce the workers' contribution by 1d. a week. I would remind the Committee again about what was said in 1945 by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) when contributions from employers and employees had been made to differ. The right hon. Gentleman gave the undertaking that they would be brought together again. The proposal of the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) is exactly the opposite. He wishes to pull the contributions further apart. In fact, these Amendments would double the existing gap.

The proposal made yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman that the worker might pay 7d. and the employer 10d. would not only double the gap, but treble it. Unless we juggle the contribution to divide the extra sixpenny contribution into different proportions, and thus violate the principle enunciated by the right hon. Member for Llanelly, we are left with two alternatives; either we must follow the proposals in the Bill and have the contributions proposed in the First Schedule which, on the Government Actuary's testimony, will be sufficient to ensure solvency, or we must accept the Amendment, which would not only destroy any hope of solvency of the Fund in the future, but would, for that very reason, make necessary at a later date a far larger increase in the contribution than is proposed in the Bill. Therefore, I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Question put, That "8d." stand part of the Schedule:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 245, Noes 203.

Division No. 9.]
AYES
[9.2 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)


Aitken, W. T.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Campbell, Sir David


Alpert, C. J. M.
Bidgood, J. C.
Carr, Robert


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Channon, Sir Henry


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Chichester-Clark, R.


Armstrong, C. W.
Bishop, F. P.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)


Ashton, H.
Black, C. W.
Cole, Norman


Atkins, H. E.
Bossom, Sir Alfred
Cooke, Robert


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Corfield, Capt. F. V.


Baldwin, A. E.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Balniel, Lord
Boyle, Sir Edward
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Barber, Anthony
Braine, B. R.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)


Barlow, Sir John
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Cunningham, Knox


Barter, John
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Currie, G. B. H.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Brooman-White, R. C.
Dance, J. C. G.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Davidson, Viscountess


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Burden, F. F. A.
Deedes, W. F.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Digby, Simon Wingfield




Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Irvine, Bryant Cadman (Rye)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Orr, Cap[...]. L. P. S.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Duncan, Sir James
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Osborne, C.


Duthie, W. S.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Page, R. G.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. (Kelvingrove)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Partridge, E.


Elliott, R. W. (N'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Kaberry, D.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Errington, Sir Eric
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Kershaw, J. A.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A


Fell, A.
Kimball, M.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Finlay, Graeme
Kirk, P. M.
Pott, H. P.


Fisher, Nigel
Lagden, G. W.
Powell, J. Enoch


Forrest, G.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Fort, R.
Lambton, Viscount
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Rawlinson, Peter


Freeth, Denzil
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Redmayne, M.


Gammans, Lady
Leather, E. H. C.
Rees-Davies, W. R


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Leavey, J. A.
Renton, D. L. M.


Gibson-Watt, D.
Leburn, W. G.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Glover, D.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Robson Brown, Sir William


Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Roper, Sir Harold


Godber, J. B.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Russell, R. S.


Goodhart, Philip
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Gower, H. R.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Shepherd, William


Graham, Sir Fergus
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Grant, W. (Woodside)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


Green, A.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Gresham Cooke, R.
McAdden, S. J.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Grimond, J.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Mackeson, Brig, Sir Harry
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
McKibbin, Alan
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Gurden, Harold
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Storey, S.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Harris, Reader (Heston)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Teeling, W.


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Maddan, Martin
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Turner, H. F. L.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Marshall, Douglas
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Mathew, R.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Maude, Angus
Vickers, Miss Joan


Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Mawby, R. L.
Wade, D. W.


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Holt, A. F.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Wall, Major Patrick


Hornby, R. P.
Moore, Sir Thomas
Ward, Rt. Hon. C. R. (Worcester)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Webbe, Sir H.


Horobin, Sir Ian
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Nairn, D. L. S.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Heave, Airey
Wood, Hon. R.


Hurd, A. R.
Nicholls, Harmar
Woollam, John Victor


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)



Hyde, Montgomery
Nugent, G. R. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Oakshott, H. D.
Colonel J. H. Harrison and


Iremonger, T. L.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Mr. Bryan.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Boyd, T. C.
Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)


Albu, A. H.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Brockway, A. F.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Cronin, J. D.


Awbery, S. S.
Burke, W. A.
Crossman, R. H. S.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Burton, Miss F. E.
Cullen, Mrs. A.


Balfour, A.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Callaghan, L. J.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)


Benson, G.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Deer, G.


Beswick, Frank
Champion, A. J.
Delargy, H. J.


Blackburn, F.
Chapman, W. D.
Diamond, John


Blyton, W. R.
Clunie, J.
Dodds, N. N.


Boardman, H.
Coldrick, W.
Dye, S.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.







Edelman, M.
Lindgren, G. S.
Reeves, J.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Lipton, Marcus
Reid, William


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rhodes, H.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
MacColl, J. E.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Fernyhough, E.
MacDermot, Niall
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Fienburgh, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Finch, H. J.
McInnes, J.
Ross, William


Fletcher, Eric
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Royle, C.


Foot, D. M.
McLeavy, Frank
Short, E. W.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Gibson, C. W.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Gooch, E. G.
Mahon, Simon
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Skeffington, A. M.


Grey, C. F.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Snow, J. W.


Hale, Leslie
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Sparks, J. A.


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mason, Roy
Steele, T.


Hamilton, W. W.
Mellish, R. J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Hannan, W.
Mitchison, G. R.
Stonehouse, John


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Monslow, W.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Hastings, S.
Moody, A. S.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Hayman, F. H.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Healey, Denis
Mort, D. L.
Sylvester, G. O.


Herbison, Miss M.
Moss, R.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Moyle, A.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Holman, P.
Mulley, F. W.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Holmes, Horace
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Thornton, E.


Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Timmons, J.


Hoy, J. H.
Oliver, G. H.
Tomney, F.


Hubbard, T. F.
Oram, A. E.
Viant, S. P.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Orbach, M.
Watkins, T. E.


Hunter, A. E.
Oswald, T.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Owen, W. J.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Palmer, A. M. F.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Jeger, George (Goole)
Pargiter, G. A.
Willey, Frederick


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Parker, J.
Williams, David (Neath)


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Paton, John
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Peart, T. F.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Pentland, N.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Popplewell, E.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Prentice, R. E.
Winterbottom, Richard


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Kenyon, C.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Woof, R. E.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Probert, A. R.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


King, Dr. H. M.
Proctor, W. T.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Lawson, G. M.
Pryde, D. J.
Zilliacus, K.


Ledger, R. J.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.



Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Randall, H. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Rankin, John
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Redhead, E. C.

Schedule agreed to.

Second Schedule.—(AMENDMENTS OF BENEFIT PROVISIONS OF INDUSTRIAL INJURIES ACT.)

Mr. Harold Finch: I beg to move, in page 7, line 32, to leave out "Thirty-four" and to insert "Forty-five".
This Amendment has reference to hardship allowance which is provided for under Section 14 of the Industrial Injuries Act. Men who sustain accidents arising out of and in the course of their employment can be divided into three categories. First, there are those who, after suffering an accident or industrial disease, recover more or less quickly. They are perhaps ill for two or three weeks and recover within the injury benefit

period. Fortunately, they constitute the majority of those who sustain industrial accidents.
The second type is that of men who are totally incapacitated as a result of an accident and who never recover. It is provided in the Bill that so long as they are totally and permanently disabled they will receive £4 5s. a week.
9.15 p.m.
There is a third ctaegory, which is the subject of the Amendment. It is those whom I would describe as totally and then partially incapacitated. For a time they are totally disabled and later they partially recover and become fit for light employment. They constitute the vast majority of men who come under the Industrial Injuries Act. It is fortunate that the totally disabled are in a minority.
We are dealing in this Amendment with the vast number of industrial workers who are partially incapacitated. When a man is partially disabled he becomes, first of all, entitled to his disablement pension. The board will decide how far he is prevented, to a greater or lesser extent, from leading a normal life. If it decides that he has suffered a loss of faculty, he is awarded a disablement pension. He has lost his earning capacity and is no longer in a position to return to his regular employment. That is the tragedy for thousands of men in industry.
We have rightly been discussing today and yesterday the position of retirement pensioners and other pensioners under this Bill. I would remind the Committee that we are here discussing a class of industrial worker who, as a result of injury, loses not £1 or £2, but £8 or £9 a week—the miner who is injured by a fall of a roof, an engineer injured by the slip of a chain. Some untoward incident may result in a skilled man, an engineer for instance, who is earning high wages and who may have been under years of apprenticeship, being thrown back into what can only be described as the labouring class.
One can take a clear example—a man earning £15 a week. He is a skilled worker. Here we want to pause for a moment, because so much has been said about increasing production. A skilled piece worker—a collier, for example—by the effort of his work may earn an average wage of £15 to £20 per week. He has a standard of living. Suddenly there is a fall of the roof, as a result of which he becomes permanently and partially disabled. His only hope is to take a job in the labouring class. Similar circumstances arise in the railway industry. A skilled engine driver with years of experience—there is an old case which is well known—loses an arm. He receives a disability pension based on 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. disablement. He has lost his job. He has to take another job in the labouring class at far lower wages.
I regard this question of hardship allowance as the most important feature of the Industrial Injuries Act. It affects thousands of industrial workers. A man who before his injury has been earning £15 a week may after he has partially recovered from his injury have to take a

job at £8 a week. He may be entitled to a pension, declared at 20 per cent., and he then becomes entitled to a disablement pension of 17s. Under the Bill he will be entitled to a hardship allowance because this allowance is based on the principle that if he is permanently incapacitated and cannot return to his regular occupation he will become entitled to a hardship allowance. In addition to his 17s. he will receive £1 14s. a week hardship allowance, according to the Bill. This means that he will have lost £4 9s. a week. Thus, his standard of living has gone; he is on a far lower standard of living than before.
These are skilled men—engineers, engine drivers, skilled colliers, who have worked for years—or they are young men who have served years of apprenticeship but who, because of injury, have had to take up a light job in the labouring class. All their prospects have gone. In those circumstances, we seek in the Amendment to increase the hardship allowance so that this loss will not be so severe.
I regard the Amendment as very moderate. We suggest that in place of the 34s. hardship allowance, the figure should be 45s. That is a very moderate amount when we bear in mind that thousands of men will lose far more than 45s. a week as a result of accidents.
There are one or two aspects of this matter which the Committee should bear in mind. The hardship allowance is limited. A man cannot receive by way of hardship allowance and disablement benefit more than the maximum payment for total incapacity; he cannot receive more than the £4 5s. It is, therefore, not an unlimited liability. He is wedged between the receipt of disablement benefit and the maximum.
When hardship allowance is payable, if the difference between the pre- and post-accident wages are less than the 34s., the man will receive the lower amount. In any event, he cannot exceed the maximum of the difference between his pre- and post-accident wages. If he was paid £10 a week before the accident and is able to earn £9 a week afterwards, then his hardship allowance will be £1. Where the difference is £4, £5 or £6 a week, the maximum will be that fixed in the Bill, which is 34s. We seek to increase it to 45s.
I regard this as a reasonable Amendment, by which we seek to give some redress to those who, as a result of accidents, have had their standard of living reduced. There is a mass of industrial workers in this category. Whether we go into the railway industry, the engineering industry or the mining industry, we see a mass of men who are on light jobs but who previously had been following a skilled occupation. They have lost not only the 10s. which we have rightly been discussing; they have lost pounds. Their careers have finished and their skill or their apprenticeship has been lost. They are in the labouring class and they are receiving low labouring wages. A miner who before his accident was earning £15 or £20 a week may find that afterwards he has to do a job on the surface at £8 a week. Henceforth that is his standard of living.
We are talking about increases in the benefits; but we should remember that these are men who have lost seriously. Their standard of living has gone. In those circumstances, the least we can do is to agree to the Amendment to give them the maximum amount possible, and we say that this should be 45s.

Mr. Prentice: I am glad to support the Amendment which was so eloquently moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch). I do so from the point of view that for some years, as a permanent official of a trade union, I have been concerned with giving advice and handling appeals in this field. In saying that, I am aware that my experience is very short compared with that of many of my hon. Friends.
Nevertheless, it has been an intensive experience, and it has led me to this conclusion about the special hardship allowance: to trade union officials and others who are concerned with it, that Section of the Act gives more trouble than the rest of the Act put together. I think it gives insurance officers, the local appeals tribunals and the Industrial Injuries Commissioner more trouble than the rest of the Act put together.
That point is illustrated if one looks at the Commissioner's decisions and all the tortuous distinctions which are drawn about this Section. It does not matter very much whether it causes trouble either to trade union officials or to the authorities under the Industrial Injuries

Scheme, but what does matter is the sense of injustice, the anomalies and unfairness which arise out of this Section and particularly out of the very limited amount that is payable as a maximum under the section. If we are to be told, as I am sure we are—it has been repeated so monotonously—that the Government, in 1946, put a limited amount in the Act, let me say at once that I think they were wrong to do so, but we should learn from experience.
Now is the time to put in a higher amount for special hardship allowance. This allowance is based on a different principle from the other benefits under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act. They are based in the main on loss of faculty. A man is compensated, just as a war-disabled man is compensated, for the loss of physical or mental faculties arising from his accident or disease. This is a special category, because it takes into account his loss of earnings. It is a vital section in the Act, because very often a comparatively small loss of faculty can lead to a large loss of earnings.
Let me take an extreme example. If a famous concert violinist were to suffer a minor injury to one finger which was permanent, and which stopped him from playing his violin, his rate of disablement gratuity under the Act would be very small, but his loss of earnings in the future would be very high. This is an example which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty said, applies so often throughout industry.
I have had a number of cases to handle concerning dockers. It was common to find that a man who had suffered a fairly small injury to his back, which was assessed as a 20 per cent. or perhaps less than 20 per cent. disability, was, nevertheless, prevented from carrying on a very wide range of dock work because his doctor said that he must not do too much lifting, bending, or operations of that kind. Instead of being able to work on a wide range of cargoes and to earn special bonuses, he was forced to do comparatively light jobs as a hatchway man, winch driver, or something of that sort, and his earnings may have been halved. That applies to many industries. Therefore, the maximum rate of allowance of 27s. 6d., which the Bill proposes to raise to 34s., bears no relation to the loss of earnings in many cases.
I am surprised to find how often a report from the Minister's Department bears out the arguments of this side of the Committee. The Report to which I referred earlier showed that out of the allowances that were paid at the end of last year, about seven-eighths of them were paid at the maximum rate. The average rate of allowance paid was 96 per cent. of the maximum. That is an illustration of what I have been saying, namely, that the real losses in the majority of cases are very much higher than the maximum rate of allowance which is payable. If that were not so the average allowance would not be so near the maximum figure.
I would like to take this opportunity of asking the Minister not merely to accept this Amendment, but to look as quickly as possible at the way in which entitlement to this allowance is awarded. I think that he should accept the Amendment, but I do not think he will. There are a great many anomalies arising from the wording of this section of the Act. For example, the allowance is payable to a man who is incapable of following his regular occupation and who is either permanently incapable or has been so incapable since the end of the injury benefit period. That means that a number of cases are left out, cases in which the full effects of an accident occur later, but where the inability to follow the regular occupation is not permanent. There are still a lot of cases of that kind not covered by the regulations.
9.30 p.m.
I remind the Minister that there are men who have a disablement of nil; that is, they have recovered from the effects of industrial diseases. I think of such a disease as dermatitis, from which the man has recovered but cannot return to his old occupation because he would get the disease again by coming into contact with the substances that caused it in the first place. Because the special hardship allowance is called an additional disablement benefit, such a man cannot be paid that disablement benefit. There are many men and women in that category who are suffering considerable loss of earnings, but who get no payment of any kind under the Industrial Injuries Scheme.
Another contradiction arises from the fact that comparison is made with the

man's regular occupation. To determine whether a man is entitled to special hardship allowance, regard is had to the occupation that he was following before his accident. If he returns to the same occupation though for fewer hours, or cannot work overtime, or works at time rate instead of piece rate, he is said to have returned to his regular occupation and, therefore, cannot have the allowance.
Those are just a few examples, but I could go on—

The Deputy-Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member will not go on, because he is getting rather far from the Amendment.

Mr. Prentice: I am most grateful, Sir Gordon, for your indulgence so far.
I hope that the points I have made will be seriously considered by the Government, in consultation with the T.U.C. and other interested bodies on a further occasion. In the meantime, I hope—it is a forlorn hope, perhaps—that the Government will accept the Amendment and give a more generous allowance to those who qualify.

Mr. Fernyhough: I should like to support my hon. Friend, and in doing so I should, perhaps, declare something of a vested interest in that I have relatives who are affected by this discussion. I want to say to the Minister, not only that this allowance should be increased, but that he should make a recommendation that it should be disregarded when its recipients have to seek National Assistance. What the Minister has to remember is that some of the people on whose behalf we are appealing tonight are unable not only to follow their normal occupation but, because of the employment situation in, for instance, the mining areas, to find alternative employment which they can do. When they are unable to find a job at the end of a period their unemployment benefit ceases and they have to go to the National Assistance Board where their hardship allowance is taken into account.
There is no question about the bitterness that this is causing. A man may have been earning, as is the case in my own family, from £10 to £12 a week and then find himself reduced to between £4 and £5. After eighteen months without a job he has to go to the National


Assistance Board because his unemployment benefit is exhausted, and the National Assistance Board takes into consideration his hardship allowance and disregards only £1 of his Industrial Injuries benefit. We must have regard to the feelings of these men who have been injured in the service of their country just as much as has any soldier, and, quite frankly, I believe that there is every reason to ask the Government to reconsider these cases.
I beg the Minister to make some inquiry to find out how many people are suffering, particularly in the mining areas, in the way that my hon. Friends have indicated. I am quite sure that if he came face to face with such cases he himself would feel that up to now justice has not been done to them.

Mr. T. Brown: I want to support this Amendment. For a number of years we have been gravely disturbed, particularly in the mining industry in which I spend most of my life, by the hardships created by what is designated as hardship allowance. To me it has lost its meaning. It is not a hardship allowance because it does not relieve hardship.
My hon. Friends have quoted cases. On Sunday afternoon, I had an interview with a man who was suffering under this penalty inflicted upon him by the limited amount of money—at present 27s. 6d.—paid in hardship allowance. I want to give the exact figures concerning his case. When he was working at the coal face, this man, a skilled collier, earned £1 9s. 4d. a day. If he had not sustained an accident he would have been earning £3 2s. a day. Therefore, the hardship allowance which he receives does not cover the hardship created by the accident. He suffers a loss of £7 16s. a week but he suffers something else as well. He has to accept a job at a much lower remuneration. He has had to come to the surface and work for lower wages. The hardship allowance by no means covers the hardship that he is experiencing.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will see the force of our argument. I know full well that we cannot bring this man's post-injury earnings up to his pre-injury earnings. We are not suggesting that, but we are suggesting in our Amendment that

we should bring those two a little nearer together. After all, this is a comparatively young man. He had served his time in the pit and had gone through all the grades and finally became a skilled collier on the coal face. Under the new scales, the present 27s. 6d. hardship allowance is to be raised to 34s., or by a sum of 6s. 6d., which is equal to almost 1s. a day. We are to give 1s. a day to an injured workman who unfortunately has lost a leg. Surely the Government and the Department should have another look at this matter.
I am not saying that the Government and the Department are indifferent, but it is so easy to sit in an office and say, "We will increase the hardship allowance from 27s. 6d. to 34s.," without asking the very important question of how far the increase meets the situation. There are thousands working in the coalfields today whose wages have come down from a high rate to a low rate and who have no compensation or allowance. The proposed scales reveal that insufficient thought is now being given and insufficient thought has been given in the past to adequate compensation. I say that because in addition to the injury benefits that we have to pay these men in respect of their misfortune in having sustained an accident, they have to be paid un-employability supplement, a special hardship allowance, and a constant attendance allowance.
I have had years of experience of dealing with compensation cases, and again in my judgment we failed, and failed miserably, to give sufficient compensation at the commencement. Therefore, we have been forced into this position: un-employability allowance, hardship allowance, constant medical attention allowance. All these have followed from the fact that originally we did not meet adequately the amount of compensation that an injured workman ought to receive.
I will read what the pamphlet states which the Minister issues to help these men to secure hardship allowance:
The maximum allowance is 27s. 6d. a week, and the rate of disablement pension and special hardship allowance cannot together be greater than 67s. 6d. a week.
So these things are given but, if a certain figure is exceeded, only part is to be given. The pamphlet continues:
Within these limits the rate of the special hardship allowance will be the difference


between the standard of remuneration in your former regular occupation and your probable standard of remuneration in any insurable employment which is suitable for you and which you are capable of doing.
Here comes a titbit:
'Remuneration' means not only wages but also remuneration of any kind including free board and lodgings.
What does that mean? Many of our chaps, after being totally incapacitated for months, have recovered to the point where they are able to take on light work, though not at the pit where they sustained the accident. So they are called on to go farther afield, in these days particularly, and then we take into consideration the board and lodgings found for them when determining their hardship allowances. I cannot bring my mind to accept that this is the right thing to do. When a man has had the misfortune to sustain an accident, as many have done, what we ought to do is to give him the highest possible amount and help him in every conceivable way. So I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister will see the force of our arguments and will agree to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Wood: I wish to begin by paying a sincere tribute to the great knowledge, wide experience and deep sympathy with which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) and other hon. Gentlemen who have spoken always bring to this subject. I cannot match their knowledge and experience, but I can match them in sympathy, and I have a certain knowledge of a similar but not entirely identical provision in the allowance for lowered standard of occupation for the disabled soldier.
Hon. Members will not want to hear from me the circumstances in which the special hardship allowance can be paid, because they will be conversant with them. Yet it is worth while looking for a moment at the history of this allowance, and the difficulty which seems to be behind our discussion this evening.
In 1944 the White Paper recommended that compensation should not be based on loss of earnings but on the new principle of loss of faculty. I gather that it was quickly realised that to have compensation wholly on loss of faculty would not begin to meet the situation to which so many hon. Members have drawn attention. In fact, it was obvious fairly soon

that the loss of earnings through industrial injury must also be taken into account. So 1946 saw the introduction of the special hardship allowance at a small figure, superseded in 1948 by the figure of 20s.; and in 1948 the Act that changed the amount of special hardship allowance also introduced what I might call the test period of employment, which I understand was later doubled to six months. In the 1954 Act—this is the end of the history—the special hardship allowance was increased to its present figure of 27s. 6d.
9.45 p.m.
From what hon. Members have said this evening, from what I have always heard, and from what we all find whenever we met this problem, it is an extremely difficult one to solve. Its difficulty was well illustrated by the example given by the hon. Member for Bedwellty of the man earning £15 a week who was injured and was afterwards able to earn a wage of only £8. In the example quoted the man had only a 20 per cent. disability, and, therefore, would receive only a 17s. disablement pension.
The difficulty which stares us in the face whenever we consider this matter is that nothing within the framework of the industrial injuries legislation can possibly take account of that catastrophic fall in earnings from £15 to £8. I appreciate that the purpose of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment is to make the subsequent earnings rather nearer the original ones than is proposed in the Bill.
The Trades Union Congress has for a very long time recognised the difficulty of this matter, and I was interested to find that the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton)—I am sorry to take his name in vain when he is not here; I understand that he is several thousand miles away—in speeches which he made in 1953 and 1954—admitted the responsibility, or a certain amount of responsibility, lying on the Trades Union Congress to try to produce some solution to the very difficult problem, the balance between loss of faculty and loss of earnings. I am well aware of the point made by the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) that a small loss of faculty can lead to a very large loss of earnings, as was implicit in the example given by his hon. Friend.
As to the difficulties in which we find ourselves, some are relatively unimportant and some relatively very important indeed. The first difficulty is that the Amendment proposes a very much larger percentage addition to the special hardship allowance than is contained anywhere else in the Bill. I am not suggesting that all the difficulties which I shall enumerate are of equal importance. I merely put that one first in my list. The second one is that to restore the value of the special hardship allowance to what it was in 1948 would require a figure of 30s. 2d., but the proposal in the Bill is to increase the figure a long way above that, to 34s.
Thirdly, the further extension of the special hardship allowance would lead to a very large increase in the number of cases where calculations of earnings would become necessary, and, as hon. Members will appreciate, that would naturally lead to a number of administrative difficulties. Again I would emphasise that I am not suggesting that all these difficulties are of equal importance.
Fourthly, there is the question of cost. The proposal in the Amendment would very considerably increase the cost. A few moments ago we were considering the necessity of paying increased contributions in order to meet the cost of the increased benefits, particularly in the years ahead.
The main difficulty, as all hon. Members will recognise, is that the Amendment would upset the balance between loss of faculty and loss of earnings, because the figure mentioned in the Amendment would mean that a man with a relatively small disability, say 40 per cent., but with special hardship allowance, would be receiving very nearly as much as a man who had been 100 per cent. disabled. As hon. Members have pointed out, the special hardship allowance, if raised to that figure, would put the emphasis on loss of earnings rather than on loss of faculty, which was not the intention in 1946. The Amendment would have the effect of giving nothing extra to the man with a relatively high disability and more to the man with a relatively low disability. It was not the intention before and I do not think that it is the intention now that we should move so far from the loss of faculty

principle towards the principle of loss of earnings.
The main question which we must now consider and which we shall have to continue to consider in the future, no doubt, is how far any further development of the special hardship allowance beyond the figure we propose in the Bill would undermine the loss of faculty principle contained in the Industrial Injuries Scheme. That is too big a question to discuss on a rates Bill. It is a matter which is fundamental to the whole Industrial Injuries Scheme. I do not believe that the Committee and the country would now be willing to decide in favour of the abandonment of the loss of faculty principle and the exaltation of the principle of loss of earnings.

Miss Herbison: I am sure that we have all listened with the greatest interest to the case which has been made by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. He has made every attempt to answer the arguments of my hon. Friends, but there are one or two further considerations which I want to put before him. All of us on this side of the Committee are in complete agreement with his statement that in a Bill of his kind we do not want to take any decision about the principle of loss of faculty or loss of earning capacity. That is a matter which will have to be carefully examined and I hope that it is a matter to which the Minister will give great attention and which he will discuss with the Trades Union Congress.
Although we accept the Parliamentary Secretary's last statement as valid, we urge the Minister to consider acceding to our request because in so doing he would not be interfering with the original intention of the 1946 Act of basing pension on loss of faculty. The Parliamentary Secretary said that if the Amendment were accepted, the rate of the hardship allowance would be increased proportionately more than the other rates. The major complaint of industrial workers has been about the amount of hardship allowance, and the difficulty of which the Parliamentary Secretary spoke would not be difficult to overcome.
The Parliamentary Secretary rightly pointed out that proportionately the money value of the increase provided in the Bill is higher than that given in 1948, but it is clear that the part of the 1946 Act which has caused most heartburning


among workers has been that dealing with the hardship allowance. I am quite certain that if we had a thorough review of the working of the Industrial Injuries Act—and we have not had it, although the Bill provided for it within five years—it would have been brought out clearly that this hardship allowance is the one that caused most heartburning and the one which most people feel ought to be increased. Again, I would say that the second point made by the Minister should not make him feel tonight that he could not grant our request.
It is said that with a larger number of cases, more calculations would be necessary. Again, that may be the case, but even if it did mean more calculations, surely if it brought greater justice to those who are disabled the Department would be willing to carry them out.
Now we come to what I feel is the crux of the refusal of the Government to accept this Amendment, the cost. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary told us that the cost would be increased considerably if this Amendment was accepted. I feel again that because there is justice in what we are asking, the Minister ought to have given greater consideration to it and ought to have accepted the increased cost. After all, he is raising the contributions to the Industrial Injuries Fund by 100 per cent. as compared with 1948, and if we take the basic amount that is given in industrial injuries benefit we find that it has been raised by 80 per cent. It seems to me that there was sufficient in the

Industrial Injuries Fund to take care of the increase for which we are asking.

There is one final point I should like to make. Those of us who come from mining areas or areas with heavy industries are fully aware of the greatest trouble which this hardship allowance brings in its trail, and this is what I think has caused so much worry about it. It is the low assessments of disability that are given. I had a case in my own constituency, only at my last "surgery," in which the assessment seemed to me to be a shocking one for a man with a broken vertebra. The Minister must realise that that is the case. He himself must be convinced that the assessments of disability are too low. When we consider these assessments of disability with the loss in the earning capacity of the men concerned, it makes much more important the need for a higher hardship allowance.

I wonder whether the Minister, having given a little more thought to the matter, would now rise and tell us that he will accept our request. If he did so, he would bring hope and satisfaction to thousands of disabled men and women, not only the industrially disabled, because if he were to accept this suggestion, as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary knows, it would follow that the same thing would happen for the war disabled.

Question put, That "Thirty-four" stand part of the Schedule:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 241, Noes 208.

Division No. 10.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Braine, B. R.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Aitken, W. T.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.


Alport, C. J. M.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Doughty, C. J. A.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Brooman-White, R. C.
du Cann, E. D. L.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Duncan, Sir James


Armstrong, C. W.
Bryan, P.
Duthie, W. S.


Ashton, H.
Burden, F. F. A.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)


Atkins, H. E.
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. (Kelvingrove)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Elliott, R. W. (N'castle upon Tyne, N.)


Baldwin, A. E.
Campbell, Sir David
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn


Balniel, Lord
Carr, Robert
Errington, Sir Eric


Barber, Anthony
Channon, Sir Henry
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Barlow, Sir John
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fell, A.


Barter, John
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Finlay, Graeme


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Cole, Norman
Fisher, Nigel


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Forrest, G.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Cooke, Robert
Fort, R.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Freeth, Denzil


Bidgood, J. C.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Gammans, Lady


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Cunningham, Knox
Gibson- Watt, D.


Bishop, F. P.
Currie, G. B. H.
Glover, D.


Black, C. W.
Dance, J. C. G.
Glyn, Col. Richard H.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Davidson, Viscountess
Godber, J. B.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Deedes, W. F.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan


Boyle, Sir Edward
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Goodhart, Philip




Gower, H. R.
Leavey, J. A.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Graham, Sir Fergus
Leburn, W. G.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Grant, W. (Woodside)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Pot[...], H. P.


Green, A.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Powell, J. Enoch


Gresham Cooke, R.
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Rawlinson, Peter


Gurden, Harold
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Redmayne, M.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Renton, D. L. M.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
McAdden, S. J.
Robson Brown, Sir William


Harvey, Sir Arthur (Macclesfd)
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Roper, Sir Harold


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
McKibbin, Alan
Russell, R. S.


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Sharples, R. C.


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Shepherd, William


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Maddan, Martin
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Hornby, R. P.
Maitland,Cdr.J.F.W.(Horncastle)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Storey, S.


Horobin, Sir Ian
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Marshall, Douglas
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Mathew, R.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hurd, A. R.
Maude, Angus
Teeling, W.


Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Mawby, R. L.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Hutchison,SirIanClark (E'b'gh, W.)
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Hyde, Montgomery
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon Sir Harry
Moore, Sir Thomas
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Iremonger, T. L.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Turner, H. F. L.


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Nairn, D. L. S.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Neave, Airey
Vickers, Miss Joan


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Nicholls, Harmar
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Wall, Major Patrick


Kaberry, D.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Keegan, D.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Webbe, Sir H.


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Oakshott, H. D.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Kershaw, J. A.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Kimball, M.
Orr, Cap[...]. L. P. S.
Wood, Hon. R.


Kirk, P. M.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Woollam, John Victor


Lagden, G. W.
Osborne, C.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Lambert, Hon. G.
Page, R. G.



Lambton, Viscount
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Partridge, E.
Colonel J. H. Harrison and


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Mr. Hughes-Young.


Leather, E. H. C.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.





NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Callaghan, L. J.
Fienburgh, W.


Albu, A. H.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Finch, H. J.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Champion, A. J.
Fletcher, Eric


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Clunie, J.
Foot, D. M.


Awbery, S. S.
Coldrick, W.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)


Baird, J.
Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Gibson, C. W.


Balfour, A.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Gooch, E. G.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Cronin, J. D.
Grey, C. F.


Benson, G.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Beswick, Frank
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Blackburn, F.
Dal[...]on, Rt. Hon. H.
Grimond, J.


Blyton, W. R.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hale, Leslie


Boardman, H.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Deer, G.
Hamilton, W. W.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Delargy, H. J.
Hannan, W.


Boyd, T. C.
Diamond, John
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Dodds, N. N.
Hastings, S.


Brockway, A. F.
Dye, S.
Hayman, F. H.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Healey, Denis


Burke, W. A.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Herbison, Miss M.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fernyhough, E.
Holman, P.







Holmes, Horace
Mason, Roy
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Holt, A. F.
Mellish, R. J.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Mitchison, G. R.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Monslow, W.
Skeffington, A. M.


Hoy, J. H.
Moody, A. S.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Hubbard, T. F.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Mort, D. L.
Snow, J. W.


Hunter, A. E.
Moss, R.
Sparks, J. A.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Moyle, A.
Steele, T.


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Mulley, F. W.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Stonehouse, John


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Stones, W. (Consett)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Oliver, G. H.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Oram, A. E.
Sylvester, G. O.


Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Orbach, M.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Oswald, T.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Owen, W. J.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Thornton, E.


Kenyon, C.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Timmons, J.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Pargiter, G. A.
Tomney, F.


King, Dr. H. M.
Parker, J.
Viant, S. P.


Lawson, G. M.
Paton, John
Wade, D. W.


Ledger, R. J.
Peart, T. F.
Watkins, T. E.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Pentland, N.
Weitzman, D.


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Popplewell, E.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Prentice, R. E.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Lindgren, G. S.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Lipton, Marcus
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson
Probert, A. R.
Wilkins, W. A.


MacColl, J. E.
Proctor, W. T.
Willey, Frederick


MacDermot, Niall
Pryde, D. J.
Williams, David (Neath)


McGhee, H. G.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


McInnes, J.
Randall, H. E.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Rankin, John
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


McLeavy, Frank
Redhead, E. C.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Reid, William
Winterbottom, Richard


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Rhodes, H.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Mahon, Simon
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Woof, R. E.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Ross, William
Zilliacus, K.


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Royle, C.



Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Short, E. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.

Mr. Finch: I beg to move, in page 7, line 44, to leave out "Thirty-five" and to insert "Thirty-eight".
May I take it, Sir Charles, that the next Amendment, in page 7, line 47, to leave out "Seventy" and to insert "Seventy-six", may be considered at the same time, as it is concerned with the same kind of allowance?
We are here dealing with the most tragic cases under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act. These are bedridden men, perhaps with a broken spine, and they will never work again. They need constant attendance. Some of them are young men who were in the mining or other industry, and they have been completely and totally disabled.
The right hon. Gentleman can afford to be generous to these men because they are the worst cases. There are others who are not so seriously disabled, but it is necessary for them, like the others, to have constant attendance. If they are able to walk out, somebody must be with

them, wife or nurse, all the time. Very often they have to pay for this attendance.
We have not yet had much success with the Government on the Bill. We have been labouring hard today and yesterday, but the Government have not made one concession. Now we have come to the seriously incapacitated men, many of whom are bedridden and all of whom require constant attendance. I am sure that the Government could well afford to give to these men the extra 3s. for which the Amendment asks.
We say a great deal about increased production today; this class of man has helped production in the past, perhaps as a skilled collier, until he met with his injury, perhaps to his spine by a fall of roof. We ask for his allowance to be increased by a few shillings, and we hope that the Amendment will be conceded.

Mr. Prentice: I wish to support the Amendment. I would point out to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that nothing has been conceded on our


Amendments so far, and that this Amendment is in a special category. The actual increases proposed in the Schedule are a smaller proportion of the existing allowance than is general throughout the Bill. When he was resisting our Amendment on special hardship allowance, the Minister said that it would create a larger percentage increase than was general in the Bill, but in this case the Government are proposing a smaller proportion, an increase of one-sixth, whereas in the rest of the Schedule the increase is approximately one-quarter.
Why are these people singled out for a smaller percentage increase? They are the worst cases, which need to have constant attendance to compensate for the effect of their injury. Very often they have, to pay someone to look after them, possibly a man and wife. Some other member of their family may have to stay at home instead of going out to work, as might otherwise be the case.
Therefore, I think that in these cases a concession might be made. According to the report of the Department, the number of people getting the allowance in October last year was 1,260 under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act and 430 under the old workmen's compensation cases—1,690 altogether. The extra cost would be negligible, and I think the case is unanswerable. I hope that the Government will accept this Amendment.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. T. Brown: All hon. Members of the Committee can reinforce what has been said by my hon. Friends. As a Scotsman would say, we have not got a bawbee from the Government. We tried for pennies, they refused; we tried for sixpences, they refused; we tried for half-crowns, they refused; now we are trying for 3s. and I hope that they will not refuse.
After all, the number of men affected, I am glad to say, is only about 2,000. Surely the Government, despite all the meanness, parsimony and niggardliness which they have manifested yesterday and today, can afford this concession for men who have been bedridden since they sustained accidents. I want to remind the Minister and all concerned of the plight of these men. I wonder whether they

have visited such cases in mining villages. There they would see something which would strike a chord of humanity in their hard hearts. These men, who sustained accidents in the pits, often could not go to hospital because there was no room for them there. The hospitals could not accept them, not because they had no sympathy for them but because they would have to remain there for the rest of their lives. So they had to stay in their own homes.
I do not want to be sentimental about this question, but I have seen some of these men in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. I have quoted cases in which they have been bedridden for fifteen or twenty years and they have to be satisfied with a mere pittance. I know that they have a constant attendance allowance and a little hardship allowance, but whatever that amount may be it does not compensate an injured workman or his family for the misfortune he sustained in the pits.
I am sorry that the Prime Minister has now left the Chamber. He and the Home Secretary have been appealing for increased productivity and fuller co-operation. If there is one way in which the Government can help the mining industry to increase production and manifest a spirit of co-operation it is by giving something tangible to injured comrades of men in the pits. Nothing would have a greater psychological effect on those workers than to know that the Government, whatever their political philosophy, were giving consideration to their injured comrades.
I beg the Minister—I am almost tired of begging the Government—to concede what we are asking, a paltry 3s.

Mr. Wood: We all agree with the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) that these are certainly very tragic cases, but I can assure the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) that our hearts are not hard.
I agree with the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) that the increase we propose in the Bill is a smaller increase than the other increases which the Bill proposes. I also agree with him that the number of recipients of this constant attendance allowance is relatively small. But I must draw the attention of the Committee not to this


allowance alone, but to the allowance looked at in conjunction with all the other allowances which are available to the very severely disabled men.
I should point out that a married man with two children who is receiving the lower rate of constant attendance allowance will, in fact, receive £11 10s., and the man who is even more seriously disabled and is receiving the constant attendance allowance at the higher rate, which we propose to put up to 70s., will receive £13 5s. He may also have some benefit under the supplementary scheme. Even taken by itself this allowance which we propose to raise to 35s. for the lower—

Mr. Bernard Taylor: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of the supplementary scheme, may I point out that that applies only to the mining industry and not to any other industry?

Mr. Wood: I appreciate that point. I was merely saying that in some of the cases mentioned there would he a payment above the figure of £13 5s. I do not want to make too much out of it. The main point which I was trying to make was in the figure itself.
Lastly, I was pointing out that even taken by themselves these allowances which we propose, of 35s. and 70s., are considerably more in purchasing power than the allowances introduced in 1948. because the allowances then were 20s. and 40s. which, in terms of today's purchasing power, are 30s. 2d. and just over 60s. I must again advise the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Chairman: I suggest that we discuss the next Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), in line 53, to leave out "Fifteen" and insert "Twenty", and the one immediately following, in line 56, to leave out "Seven" and insert "Twelve," and all the Amendments to the Fourth Schedule together, but when we reach that Schedule we cannot have any further discussion, although, of course, there may be some Divisions—I suggest three—if the Committee wishes.

Mr. Marquand: Thank you, Sir Charles, for that suggestion. As the hour is getting late and we want to make progress,

Section 19 (3)
Weekly rate of widow's pension in any other circumstances than those specified.
Twenty shillings.
Thirty shillings.

I would propose at this stage not to move the Amendment standing in my name, in line 53 leave out "Fifteen" and insert "Twenty". This Amendment relates to increases in children's allowances under the Industrial Injuries Act.

As you have just reminded us, Sir Charles, there is a long series of Amendments to the Fourth Schedule, which are also in my name, relating to the children's allowances under the National Insurance Act. I do not propose to move the Amendment in my name in relation to the Industrial Injuries Act, but to take the opportunity when we reach the Fourth Schedule of moving the Amendment which stands in my name and having thereon a debate in which we can discuss the whole question of children's allowances.

I realise that in doing this I am forfeiting legally and technically the opportunity to amend this Schedule, but I am sure that if my Amendment to the Fourth Schedule were carried the Government would accept the will of the House and propose similar Amendments to the Second Schedule on the Report stage. I should therefore not lose anything by not moving this Amendment. I have decided not to move this Amendment in the hope of facilitating the business of the House and of allowing us to rise at a reasonable hour tonight.

The Chairman: I agree, if that is the will of the Committee. When we come to the Fourth Schedule I think there must be about 30 or 40 Amendments, although I have not counted them. I would not expect Divisions on them all.

Mr. Marquand: It would not be for one moment our intention to take up the time of the Committee with a large number of Divisions. Our anxiety is that the Bill shall receive its Third Reading tomorrow so that the increases shall come into effect on the date promised, 28th January.

The Chairman: I beg the Committee's pardon. I have counted too many. There are nineteen Amendments altogether.

Mr. John McKay: I beg to move, in page 8, line 7, at the end to insert:
I do not intend to take up too much time on the Amendment but, at the same time, I want the Committee to realise that it is looked upon in the industrial world as a very important Amendment. It deals with the widow of a man who suffered a fatal accident in industry, who has no children at the time of the accident or whose children have ceased to be dependent upon her before she reaches the age of fifty. I want to draw the Committee's attention to the fact that the widow who is receiving benefit under those circumstances is being paid today the same amount of money as she was paid in 1946. The payment has remained unaltered all that time. On several occasions we have amended and improved practically all the benefits under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, but this Section has remained unaltered.
During the discussions this afternoon, when we were dealing with non-contributory pensions, it was pointed out that these were not established benefits under the Act. The same comment largely applies to the 10s. widow. Here, however, we are dealing with a position where, under the initiation of the National Insurance and Industrial Injuries Scheme, there is a definite and established benefit. This indicates quite clearly that at the passing of the Act it was recognised that the widow of a man who had been injured in the workshops had an established right carried over from the old compensation Acts. In those circumstances, the widow of a man who was killed in industry had in the past and has in the present a recognised claim, just as an Army widow has a recognised claim.
It has been said that the provisions concerning these 20s. widows broadly apply to younger women, but anyone who attempts to make that argument is deluding the Committee. I ask hon. Members to consider the case of a widow whose husband is killed when she is 27 years of age. She may have two or three children. In eighteen years' time she will be 45. As a widow she will have continued for eighteen years to bring up her children. After doing all that strenuous work, at the age of 45, when her children have ceased to be dependent on her, she will be told that because she has not reached the age of 50 she has no right,

in justice, to the ordinary pension granted to all other widows.
10.30 p.m.
Therefore, widows at age 47, 48 or 49, who have brought up their children to the age of 15 will, in future, suffer a decrease from 56s. to 20s. That is unfair, because their claim was recognised in the scheme and they should receive at least some improvement, just as will those benefiting under the Industrial Injuries Scheme. The position now is that whereas in 1948, the difference between this type of widow and the widow under the Industrial Injuries Scheme who had full pension was only 10s., next year it will be as much as 36s.
Surely, whatever claim there was in 1946 exists today. That being so, what reason, in justice is there for saying that this benefit to which I refer should remain at its present level? We cannot understand it. If there is any claim that needs to be improved it is this one. I hope that the Minister will reconsider this matter, as it is something that makes the people in the workshops feel that justice is not being done to them. Those receiving this benefit have as good a claim for an increase as anybody else.

Mr. William Blyton: In view of what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said during the debate on Clause 1, I have no hope of the Minister accepting this Amendment. My reason for speaking now, however, is to challenge the Government's case as put forward by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary when rejecting the plea for those widows under 50 years of age who have lost their husbands as a result of the men's employment.
It is twelve years ago tomorrow since the Minister and I argued this question in Committee. Our argument then, even against my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), was that the age was too high and that the amount was too low, and we were told that this was the rate to be paid to those widows. The then minister said:
In this Measure we are providing for injuries benefits and we have to compare these provisions with the Workmen's Compensation Acts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 20th November, 1945; c. 265.]
The workmen's compensation Acts were still in existence when we were arguing.


It was quite clear in that Committee, which the Minister attended, that these widows with no children were recognised as being in a category entirely different from that of the widows under the National Insurance Act.
Yesterday, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay), the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood), tried to shelter under the argument that
She, I repeat, must be compared with the widow…under the National Insurance Scheme who is not receiving any pension at all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1957; Vol. 578, c. 87.]
If that is the Minister's attitude, he ought to "come clean." If he wants to put this widow in the same position as the National Insurance widow, he ought to have done that in the Bill, but if he recognises that the principle embodied in the 1946 Act is still right he should increase her benefit by the same amount as he increased every other benefit.
What is the case for putting this widow in a different category? Under the old Workmen's Compensation Act, a widow, regardless of age, whose husband was killed in employment, was given £400. Under the later Industrial Injuries scheme, a husband was a contributor and the widow had to be brought into it because of the carry-over from the old Workmen's Compensation Act. I deplore the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's argument in the attempt to prevent justice being done under the Bill to this widow who is in a category entirely different from that of the National Insurance widow.
The sum involved cannot be very large, because there are not many widows whose husbands have been killed in the course of employment who would be brought within this provision. As long as the principal Act of 1946 operates within the purview of the Bill, the Minister is under an obligation to make the sum which this widow is to receive in 1957 of the same purchasing value as the sum which she received in 1946. That is why, in our Amendment, we seek to bring the £1 which she received then up to 30s. so that she can buy today goods similar to those which she bought in 1946. Not to do that would be a disgrace. It would be an injustice to these widows who have lost their

husbands whilst those husbands were following their employment.
These widows have been entirely ignored in two Measures brought forward since 1946 to increase National Insurance benefits. Although I have no hope of getting anything from the Minister on this issue, I want to place on record our protest at an injustice to these widows, who lost their husbands in the course of employment, and at the absolute negation of the 1946 Act, which provided that they should receive £1 a week. To ensure that they receive that £1, the Minister, in all justice, should increase the amount to 30s. so that the purchasing power of the amount shall be equal to that which they received in 1946.

Miss Pitt: The Amendment proposes to increase from 20s. to 30s. the allowance under the Industrial Injuries scheme for the younger, able-bodied widow without children.

Mr. McKay: I think that the hon. Lady emphasises that point too much. Is it not correct that a widow could have had three children and brought them up to independence and, because they are no longer children, this sum can fall from the proposed 56s. to 20s.?

Miss Pitt: If the hon. Member will let me get started, I will come to that point. I was trying to make clear the background against which we should view this matter.
The standard rate for the Industrial Injuries widow under the Bill is to be increased from 45s. to 56s.
Now I come to the points raised by the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay). He said that where a woman was widowed by her husband losing his life through industrial injury, she would, if her children were over age, get only 20s. and not the main rate, the proposed improved rate, of 56s. I would assume that in the majority of cases the widow would be over the age of fifty by the time her children had grown up, and under the present conditions she would qualify for the full standard widow's rate.
I now come to the other example which the hon. Member quoted, which is even clearer. He gave as a typical case a widow who was 27 when she lost her husband, and at that time she had three


children. The eldest child might be 18 when the widow was still 45—

Mr. McKay: The youngest child might be.

Miss Pitt: Yes, it is the youngest child. That takes them all out of allowance for themselves. The hon. Gentleman then said that the widow would at the age of 45 drop from the main rate of Industrial Injuries widows' benefit to 20s. I am happy to assure him that is not correct.
I will give the Committee the grounds on which the full standard rate of Industrial Injuries widows' pension is now awarded. It is paid for any period when the widow is also entitled to an allowance for a child. That is quite clear. It is paid if the widow was over 50 when her husband died. That covers the first example which the hon. Gentleman cited. It is paid if the widow is permanently unable to support herself at the time of her husband's death; that is, if her physical capacity is impaired. It is paid if she has residing with her a child under 18 who has no allowance because by now perhaps he is at work, being 18 years old, but was in her husband's family. If the widow is over 40 at the time that such a child reaches 18 or otherwise ceases to qualify, perhaps because he has left home, the higher rate still continues. This is where the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act differs from the National Insurance Act.
One of the changes that we made as recently as last year was to enable the widow with a child up to the age of 18 in her family, even though he might be working, to continue to receive benefit. I hope that disposes of some of the worries in the mind of the hon. Member.
I would end by saying that, although I think the present provisions cater for the vast majority of widows who need help, any increase in the 20s. rate would serve only to emphasise the contrast between the National Insurance 10s. widow and the "no shilling' widow of the National Insurance scheme, because a woman widowed at present in circumstances where her children are over age while she is still under 50 would, in the National Insurance scheme, lose her allowance, and

if she has no children she gets no allowance whatever.
The whole of this brief discussion has really been centred on the modern conception of widowhood, which came about with the Beveridge Report and the introduction of the 1946 Measures. Whereas in the old days widowhood was regarded as something which attracted compensation whatever the age and circumstances of the widow, whether she had children or not, the modern outlook is that the State, through its insurance funds, accepts responsibility if she has children in her care, if her age precludes her from re-entering the labour market or if there are other special circumstances.
I really think that the grounds on which the higher rate of Industrial Injuries widows' benefit is now available cover the cases which the hon. Member has in mind, and I hope he will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
We have made somewhat better progress in the last two hours, and although there is still a certain amount of the Committee stage left to deal with tomorrow and it is, as I think the Committee appreciates, of vital importance that we should leave enough time tomorrow to complete the Third Reading in order that these benefits may be put into payment at the time suggested, I hope that with good will and co-operation on all sides it will be possible to achieve that.
I noted that a few moments ago the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) indicated his and the Opposition's awareness of the importance, and indeed of the necessity, of getting the Third Reading tomorrow. In the light of that and on that understanding I am happy to be able to move this Motion and to avoid keeping the Committee to an uncomfortably late hour.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS

Select Committee appointed to consider whether it is desirable to amend and consolidate the law relating to Obscene Publications:

Sir Peter Agnew, Mr. Ede, Mr. Hugh Fraser, Sir Lancelot Joynson-Hicks, Mr. Roy Jenkins, Mr. Elwyn Jones, Viscount Lambton, Mr. Nigel Nicolson, Sir Leslie Plummer, Mr. Kenneth Robinson, Mr. Simon, Sir Spencer Summers. Mr. Turton and Mr. Younger:

Minutes of the Evidence taken before the Select Committee on the Obscene Publications Bill in the last Session of Parliament and the Appendices thereto referred to the Committee:

Power to send for persons, papers and records:

Five to be the Quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Oakshott.]

FRAULEIN SCHMIDT (ENTRY VISA)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Oakshott.]

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: It was just over a year ago that I was fortunate enough to be able to raise on the Adjournment the question whether or not the Home Office should grant an entry visa for permanent residence in this country of an ex-German national now living in Siberia, a Frau Schmidt, and I am happy to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) was gracious enough to say that there seemed to be a possibility that this happy occasion might be fulfilled. Indeed, subsequent to that Adjournment debate, Frau Schmidt was granted the visa which she desired. I hope that my hon. Friend the present Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will follow the excellent example set by her predecessor in the former matter.
It was after the granting of the permanent entry visa to this country for Frau Schmidt that the question of granting a temporary entry visa into this country for her daughter, Fraulein Schmidt, arose. I wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford when he was Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to see if it was possible for Fraulein Schmidt to be granted a temporary entry visa, the main reason for this being that

Frau Schmidt is an aged lady. After many years of privation and hardship in Siberia it is quite natural—indeed it would be surprising if it were not so—that she should not be in a fit state of health to make the journey to this country alone.
Therefore, I sought permission from the Home Office for Fraulein Schmidt to come here on a temporary entrance visa, to accompany her mother and then to return to Siberia, or wherever else she happened to want to go. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford wrote to me on 18th January stating that before the Home Office could consider granting a visa for an alien to come here, it had to be reasonably satisfied that the alien would be able and willing to leave the United Kingdom at the end of the period of the visa. Immediately upon receiving that letter, I set about trying to obtain from Fraulein Schmidt, herself in Siberia, a signed declaration that she guaranteed that she would leave this country upon the expiration of the temporary entrance visa.
That letter from my hon. Friend implied that when such an assurance was obtained from Fraulein Schmidt, the Home Office would at least regard it as being a piece of evidence of some importance. I was, therefore, a little shocked and surprised to obtain from my hon. Friend the present Joint Under-Secretary a letter written on 6th May saying:
I am sorry that the family have gone to the trouble of getting this assurance…
That was the assurance obtained from Fraulein Schmidt. It was an assurance for which my hon. Friend's predecessor had virtually asked, and I can assure my hon. Friend that Fraulein Schmidt's family took very ill indeed this piece of what seemed to them rather gratuitous impertinence. My hon. Friend's letter went on:
I can find nothing in Mr. Deedes's letter of 18th January to suggest that the provision of such a document would affect our decision.
Immediately after that, in her letter of 20th May, my hon. Friend stated that she could not be satisfied that Fraulein Schmidt would leave the country at the expiration of any temporary entrance visa granted to her.
I do not blame my hon. Friend for that. We all know that England, under a Tory or any other Government, appears to a great many foreigners behind the Iron Curtain as a place of very desirable


residence. There have been cases where guarantees and assurances have been given by aliens seeking temporary entrance visas that at the expiration of the visas they would leave our shores. Then, when the temporary visas had expired, the aliens have refused to go and my hon. Friend has found herself in the difficulty of having to permit them to stay beyond the expiration of the visas or to seek to deport them with all the odium and invidious proceedings which such deportation orders must bring about.
I was a little surprised, however, although I fully sympathise with my hon. Friend in not considering Fraulein Schmidt's assurance to be enough, at the passage in her letter of 20th May in which she said:
In considering the matter we had to take into account the previous history, from which it is clear that Emilie Schmidt really wants to settle hare and that if she came she would have no intention of returning to Russia.
Whether upon the expiration of her temporary visa Fraulein Schmidt intends to return to Russia, I do not know. Certainly it would be most unfortunate if it were suggested that she did not expect to return, because, obviously, the Soviet authorities would not then grant her permission to leave Russia. The correspondence I have had with my hon. Friend and her predecessor does not lead me to such a view. However, we had obtained an assurance from Fraulein Schmidt which my hon. Friend did not consider good enough.
The question therefore, as I saw it, if Fraulein Schmidt were granted a temporary entry visa, was whether my hon. Friend was likely to be put in the position, upon the expiration of that visa, of Fraulein Schmidt refusing to go back to Russia. Naturally my two hon. Friends, the Joint Under-Secretaries of State, being kind-hearted people, would not wish to deport anybody back to the shores of Soviet Communism. I therefore tried to discover whether Fraulein Schmidt was considered by the Federal German Republic to be a German national or not. Finally, after a great deal of correspondence, I managed to send to my hon. Friend a document which I thought established that position beyond doubt.
On 2nd July of this year my hon. Friend wrote to me as follows:—

I have had same inquiry made about the document"—
that is, the document that I had sent her—
and I am prepared to accept that it provided evidence that Fraulein Emilie Schmidt and her mother are recognised as Germans by the Federal Republic and that they should be able now to obtain German passports and facilities to enter Western Germany.
We had therefore reached the stage where, if Fraulein Schmidt were granted a temporary entry visa, she had given the assurance that she would leave at its expiry, and that she was a Western German national, and that upon deportation from this country she would not have to be sent back behind the Soviet lines. But my hon. Friend did not consider that enough. She went on to say that it was necessary, before Fraulein Schmidt could be granted a temporary visa, to make certain that she had a settled base in Germany.
On 26th July, my hon. Friend wrote saying:
You now say that she has a home to go to in Germany and that the repatriation document would not have been given if this had not been so. I have not taken any steps to check what is the effect of the repatriation document beyond commenting, as I did in my previous letter, that it was some evidence that the two women would be accepted into Germany by the German authorities, but the words in my letter of 2nd July must be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Frau Schmidt cannot be allowed to come here on a visit until she has a settled base in Germany to which she can return.
I presume that my hon. Friend meant "Fraulein Schmidt".
I then set about seeing if it were not possible that Fraulein Schmidt had in fact a settled base in Germany to which it was possible for her to go—either in that she had relatives there who would receive her into their home or had friends of the family with whom she could make a home if she arrived in Germany penniless and deported from this country at the expiration of her temporary visa. Indeed, on 21st August my hon. Friend confirmed me in the belief. She wrote:
Throughout this lengthy correspondence the difficulty in Emilie Schmidt's case is that we cannot be satisfied that if she came here directly from Russia she would leave after a temporary stay. Nothing that has been said has removed our doubts on this point and I am afraid that I am not prepared to agree to her coming here for a visit unless she has first settled herself in a home elsewhere abroad to which she would return.
My hon. Friend must know that that is quite impossible, because the one thing that the Russian authorities will never


do is to give Fraulein Schmidt an exit permit to Dave Russia and go to Western Germany. That must be painfully obvious, because as far as Russia is concerned she is a Russian citizen and as far as Western Germany is concerned she is a German citizen. Therefore, it is obvious that to say that Fraulein Schmidt must wait until she is granted a permit by the Russians to make a home in Western Germany is equivalent to saying that she must wait for the Greek Kalends; it does not enter into the position at all.
I managed, through the agency of Fraulein Schmidt's sister-in-law—a constituent of mine—and her husband, to obtain a letter from a Frau Pathun of Sohlingen, in Germany, and I have here the following declaration. Roughly translated—I do not think my translation is inaccurate—it reads:
Herewith I, Eleanor Pathun, living in Sohlingen, Northern Germany, declare that I will take into my household Fraulein Emilie Schmidt, born 7th December, 1918, at present living in the U.S.S.R., in the case of her leaving that country.
The case has now reached this stage: Fraulein Schmidt has applied for temporary entrance to this country in order that she might accompany her mother, Frau Schmidt, from Siberia. Fraulein Schmidt has given every assurance of which she is capable that she will leave this country on the expiry of her temporary visa, and we have the assurance of the German authorities that Fraulein Schmidt is a German subject, and that therefore, if she were deported at the end of her temporary stay, having refused to go back to Russia, she can enter Western Germany as a German national. We also have the assurance of a woman in Germany who is prepared to take Emilie Schmidt, whether penniless or not, into her home and look after her.
I submit that the case is not like those which trouble my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State, in which an alien comes to this country on a temporary visa and on its expiry refuses to leave, weeps tears, and says, "You can't send me back to horrible Russia." If Fraulein Schmidt refuses to go back to Russia my hon. Friend can, with a clear conscience, tell her to leave this country and can say, "I know you can go to Germany and that you have friends there who are prepared to take you in."
I assure my hon. Friend that if Fraulein Schmidt is granted such a visa on such terms I will never reproach my

hon. Friend should she find it necessary to deport Fraulein Schmidt at the end of her temporary stay in this country. I ask her to think again before she makes her reply.
This is a question of two lives behind the Iron Curtain. It is not for us to say whether, on the expiry of her temporary visa, Fraulein Schmidt will go back to Russia or will go elsewhere. The only point that concerns the British Government is that, if deported from this country, she has somewhere to go and a family to receive her. Should Fraulein Schmidt not obey the terms of her visa, my hon. Friend's conscience will be clear.

11.3 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth) has interested himself very strenuously in the particular case of a mother and sister of one of his constituents, who are living behind the Iron Curtain, Frau and Fraulein Schmidt. We at the Home Office, as I believe my hon. Friend accepted and understood in his speech, have to consider cases in relation to established policy. That policy concerns not one case which may interest a particular hon. Member and play upon his humanitarian instincts, not even a handful of cases; we have thousands of cases of like degree. I am sure that it would be wrong if the principles on which the immigration control is exercised were varied in accordance with the amount of publicity or Parliamentary pressure applied to them. These things have to be judged on their merits in exactly the same way as many other applications we receive.
It can be agreed that conditions behind the Iron Curtain are less pleasant than those in this country. What we cannot accept is that this country should accept any alien who prefers conditions here to those in his own country, or that the mere fact that someone in this country is prepared to provide accommodation for alien relatives is sufficient reason for us to grant permanent residence, which I still believe is the desire and intention of this lady.
The principles on which we administer immigration control have been quite clearly made known to my hon. Friend. Indeed, he has outlined them in his speech as well as I could. We are not a


country of immigration. We do, however, consider sympathetically the question of elderly and, in particular, isolated or distressed relatives under the Distressed Relatives Scheme. As my hon. Friend said, following the pledge given by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) in a previous Adjournment debate, when he was in the position I now occupy, we agreed in principle to accept the mother, Frau Schmidt, under the Distressed Relatives Scheme. We did not accept the application of Fraulein Schmidt, the daughter, to take up permanent residence in this country. She is in employment, she has a married sister in Russia and does not qualify under existing policy for permanent residence.
Having obtained permission for the mother to take up residence in this country the hon. Member and his constituents, if I may say so, changed their ground. With a manoeuvre with which I regret to say we are all too familiar in the Home Office, we were informed on 8th January that Frau Schmidt could not travel without her daughter, and it was suggested that the latter be allowed temporary entry—which is what the hon. Member is now asking—into the United Kingdom to accompany her mother, after which it was suggested that Emilie Schmidt would proceed to Germany.
I had conversations with my hon. Friend in which, I am sure in absolutely good faith, he assured me that the family had accepted the idea that the daughter must go on to Germany, but, within days of my hon. Friend's assurance, Mrs. Schmidt, the English born wife of Mr. Schmidt, who is a resident in this country, was writing to the Prime Minister asking that both her mother-in-law and her sister-in-law be given indefinite residence in the United Kingdom. The then Joint Under-Secretary of State again emphasised that we could only consider favourably a visa application from Frau Schmidt.
My hon. Friend raised a complaint about the letter sent to him by my hon. Friend who was previously Under-Secretary. The paragraph over which there has been a misinterpretation I think is quite plain, that the alien is
able and willing to leave the United Kingdom at the end of the visit.
There have followed various undertakings which I think my hon. Friend

must realise are of little practical value unless Fraulein Schmidt has established and taken up an alternative residence outside Russia. I know my hon. Friend agrees with me, and I accept with him, that if Fraulein Schmidt obtains an exit visa from Russia she certainly will not go back. I do not blame her for that, but at the Home Office we have to be realistic and use our common sense in many hundreds of like cases. It is perfectly obvious that if Fraulein Schmidt comes out of Russia she will never go back voluntarily. We should not expect her to do so.
She could not be made to go unless she has some home elsewhere where she has established her residence, where the country has already accepted her as a resident and to which in the last resort, if we had to use the powers at our command, she could be sent. That is why we have said that a visa for a visit might be considered if Fraulein Schmidt had a settled home in Western Germany, to which racially she would appear to belong, and where she might conceivably be able to go under a scheme for repatriation of Germans from Russia. I would, however, assure my hon. Friend that it is not as easy as he imagines. The Germans have accepted them as German citizens who can be allowed out under their repatriation scheme. That does not mean that if she chooses first to come to England they will then automatically accept her for permanent residence in Germany, and it is of that we have to be assured.

Mr. Freeth: If I were able to obtain from the German Embassy in this country an assurance that they would allow Fraulein Schmidt to enter penniless into Western Germany on the expiration of the temporary exit visa, would my hon. Friend agree to look at the case again?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: If an assurance of facilities for permanent residence were forthcoming, I should indeed look at it again.
I must tell my hon. Friend that I am surprised that the advice which, in all sincerity and in an endeavour to help this family, has been repeatedy given through him appears not to have been followed. It was given in the case of both Frau Schmidt and Fraulein Schmidt, and it was that in their own interests it would have been better for them to endeavour to obtain exit visas in the past year, during which this case has been running,


through the official German repatriation organisation, when this opportunity offered the most likely possibility of their being granted an exit visa from the Soviet Union. That would possibly have made it easier and quicker for them to get out of the Soviet than trying for an exit visa to come to this country.
Largely through the efforts of my hon. Friend it has been established that Emilie Schmidt and her mother are recognised as Germans by the Federal authorities, and they should be able to obtain Federal passports and facilities to enter Western Germany. They have been accepted on the repatriation list.
There has been a persistent refusal by the family and my hon. Friend to follow the natural course—and possibly the quickest course of getting out of the Soviet by these German nationals—of applying for entry to the country whose nationality they claim and whose Government have accepted them as nationals on a repatriation list. Consequently, it is difficult for us to draw any other conclusion than that permanent residence in the United Kingdom is intended. There are now, I agree, certain political difficulties in the way, but for the last year it would have been in the family's interests to try that channel rather than to persist in the demand that they must come to England.
We can only feel that it is the intention of this lady to arrive in this country and, if it is humanly possible, to stay here permanently. The basis for the entry of any visitor is that he or she should have a settled base in some country of returnability. Nobody expects this lady to go back to Russia, but she is a German national, accepted by the German repatriation authorities, and it seems to me natural that she should have used that channel had she intended to go back as a German national. Fraulein Schmidt would not return to Russia, and I certainly do not blame her for that. It is therefore logical and I believe not unreasonable that she should be required to establish hex right of entry and residence in the country whose nationality she claims.
I must point out that this question is still very largely hypothetical, since we do not know that either of these ladies will be able to leave Soviet territory at all. It would have been easy for the Home Office to have authorised visas in the expectation that the authorisation

would not be implemented, but that would not have been honest and it is not the way we work.
It is our duty to apply to these unfortunate cases, impartially but without undue rigidity, the principles which from time to time have been announced in the House, but it does not lessen my regret at not being able to satisfy my hon. Friend that the issue between us may well be academic, in a sense, because we have no assurance that these two ladies will be allowed out of Soviet Russia. The complicated equation represented by all these considerations cannot he resolved because of the unknown factor—what will be the attitude of the Soviet authorities?
In essence, therefore, this case is of someone permanently resident here seeking to bring into this country a foreign relative. That is a very common situation. It is a natural result of filial feeling and family affection, but at the same time we have to recognise that we have many thousands—indeed, hundreds of thousands—of foreign-born and still, in many instances, foreign nationals, in this country. They, realising that life in Britain is far more pleasant than behind the iron curtain and elsewhere, are anxious to bring over their relatives; and unless the long established policy of controlling immigration is to be seriously subverted, we must have some check. This was done by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) when he was Home Secretary by means of the Distressed Relatives Scheme and that Scheme has held the field with only minor modifications.
Under it we have accepted Frau Schmidt as a person in some distress, but we must make it clear that the sister in employment, who has a married sister in Russia, should rightly be expected to take up her opportunity under the German repatriation scheme and establish, first, her residence there. My hon. Friend who raised this subject appears to assume that it is automatic that, having been accepted under this Scheme she can enter Germany and come to this country. I am not so sure, but if he can bring some assurance that she will be accepted as a permanent resident in Germany, then I shall be very happy to look at this case again.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Eleven o'clock.